Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 3, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Is dynamic computer-assisted surgery more accurate than the static method for dental implant placement? A systematic
Dileep Nag Vinnakota1, Rekhalakshmi Kamatham2, Edamadaka Nagaraj3
1Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Statement Of Problem:
Dynamic computer-assisted surgery for dental implant placement has become popular, but systematic comparisons of the accuracy of computer-assisted surgery with static surgery are lacking.
Purpose:
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine evidence on the difference in the accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted surgery compared with the static method for dental implant placement.
Material And Methods:
A systematic search was conducted in 3 electronic databases: PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane. Studies conducted on dental implants that compared the accuracy of positioning implants with a dynamic system with that of a static system were included. Randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and in vitro studies were included in the review. Review articles, case reports, letters, opinion articles, commentaries, and nonpeer-reviewed literature were excluded.
Results:
Of the 26 full-text articles, 14 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, 2 were randomized clinical trials, 2 were prospective studies, and 1 was a retrospective cohort study. The remaining 9 were in vitro studies. A total of 1633 implants were placed with the static and 902 with the dynamic method. A significant mean difference (-0.51 degrees [95% CI: -0.90, -0.13]) between dynamic and static systems was only observed in the angular deviation of in vitro studies (P=.009). Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager statistical software and forest plots were generated.
Conclusions:
A difference was found in the angular deviation of implants placed with the dynamic approach compared with the static system. The dynamic system was better, but this difference was not demonstrable in clinical studies. No significant difference was found in the apical and coronal deviations of the dynamic and static systems.
