ReviewJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2025
Comparison of Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement Between Freehand and Guided Implant Surgery-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of fiber bragg grating sensing to thermal variation during dental implant site preparation: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Fully Guided Implant Placement Using Bone-Supported Stackable Surgical Guides in Completely Edentulous Patients-A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statement of Problem: Conventional freehand implant placement protocols relied on the pre-operative radiographs for planning of implant placement. The need for a more predictable and planned approach led to the advent of computer-assisted implant placement protocols. Purpose: A prosthetically driven implant placed according to the planned implant position helps the surgeon avoid complications like inadvertent damage to surrounding vital structures, undesired implant angulation, bone loss or inadvertent perforation. Surgical guides serve as a template to transfer the planned implant position to the actual anatomic site with improved predictability and accuracy. Materials and Methods: Six electronic databases were thoroughly searched with specific MeSH terms for randomized control trials, non-randomized control trials, prospective studies and in vitro studies in last ten years till 2023 for the evaluation of accuracy between freehand and fully guided implant placement protocols following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Results: The initial search revealed 2202 articles from which 10 articles were selected. A fully guided technique uses surgical guide for placement of both the drills and the implant, whereas the conventional freehand approach relies only upon the pre-operative radiographs and the surgeon's expertise for implant placement. Angular deviation and apical deviation are the most vulnerable parameters susceptible to error without the use of a surgical guide. Conclusion: Accuracy of fully guided implant surgery is better than freehand implant surgery in all the parameters mentioned above. Significant improvement was noticed for angular deviation, apical deviation, 3D deviation (base) and 3D deviation (apex). This is the first systematic review to include the comparison of linear and 3D spatial deviation and compare the six deviation parameters together.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.