Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 21, 2025
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
The clinical accuracy of the implant digital surgical guide: A meta-analysis
Fang Zhang1, Xue Gao1, Zhang-Yan Ye1
1Department of Stomatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University (CNS), Wenzhou, China.
Purpose:
To systematically evaluate the accuracy of clinical applications of digital guides.
Methods:
First, PubMed and Embase databases were searched using the PICO standard. Eligible articles were included. Second, the eligible articles were classified according to the different types. Next, the NOS and ROB2 as evaluation indicators were used to evaluate the bias of those included articles. Finally, sensitive factors were excluded through the outcomes and data analyses were retrieved.
Results:
More than 1,562 articles were retrieved, and 38 in vivo research documents were systematically analyzed after screening according to the inclusion criteria, which mainly listed three aspects of the coronal, apical, and angular implant data, and integrated the same type of articles in the study. To test its heterogeneity, the P-values of those articles included in the analysis were all less than 0.05. Finally, in the comparison between the guide group and the free-hand group after excluding sensitive factors, the standardized mean difference (Std.MD) of the angle was 1.26 (95% CI 1.06, 1.47), the Std.MD of the apical point was 1.38 (95% CI 1.12, 1.63), and the Std.MD of the coronal point was 0.98 (95% CI 0.66, 1.29). Comparing the maxillary and mandibular groups after excluding sensitive factors, the Std.MD of the coronal point was -0.31 (95% CI -0.52, -0.09), the Std.MD of the apical point was -0.15 (95% CI -0.34, 0.03), and the Std.MD of the angle is -0.23 (95% CI -0.46, 0.01). Comparison between the smoking group and the nonsmoking group, and between the flap group and the flapless group showed that there was not enough evidence to make a reliable assessment.
Clinical Significance:
Compared with free-hand operation, a digital guide is more accurate in the apex, the coronal point and the angle, and the accuracy in the angle was very high. The difference in accuracy between the maxillary and mandibular groups was not statistically significant. Other factors such as smoking habit and flap need more clinical data.
