Comparison Between Computer-Assisted and Freehand Dental Implant Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

To compare computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) and freehand implant placement (FHIP) in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes.

This systematic review and meta-analysis included a comprehensive search of five databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science), along with handsearching and cross-referencing, which identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CAIS and FHIP literature published up to November 2024. Outcomes included marginal bone loss (MBL), implant survival rate, patient satisfaction, pink esthetic scores, probing depth, and complications. The Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach were used to assess study quality and evidence certainty. Meta-analysis and sensitivity/subgroup analyses were also conducted.

A total of 12 publications from 9 RCTs (395 participants, 1,242 implants) were included. Although overall differences in MBL and implant survival were not statistically significant, subgroup analyses revealed several significant findings. CAIS demonstrated significantly reduced MBL in fresh socket placements (P = .04), higher patient satisfaction (P = .03), and improved pink esthetic scores (P = .009). FHIP was associated with fewer biologic complications (P = .04) and lower MBL values when compared to tissuesupported CAIS (P = .03). Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness for most outcomes; however, evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate, and six studies showed a high RoB.

Considering the limitations related to the quality of the included studies, both CAIS and FHIP achieved high survival rates (> 98%). CAIS showed advantages in fresh socket cases and esthetic/patient-reported outcomes, while FHIP had fewer biologic complications and better outcomes when using an open-flap approach.