Accuracy of Type I Implant Placement using Static and Dynamic guides compared to the Conventional method – A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Aim: To evaluate the accuracy of Type I implant placement using static and dynamic guides compared to the conventional freehand method. Settings and Design: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Methods and Materials: An electronic search of PubMed (including MEDLINE), EBSCO host databases, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar search engine for articles published from 1st January 2013 to 1st March 2023 was conducted. The literature search intended to retrieve all relevant clinical and in vitro studies about the accuracy of type I implant placement using static and dynamic guided surgery and conventional freehand implant placement. Statistical analysis used: Meta-analysis was conducted from the reported quantitative data. Results: A total of 1486 articles were obtained via electronic search, and 2 articles were obtained via manual search; 6 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Among the different parameters described, the difference in accuracy between virtual and planned implant positions was evaluated. Accuracy was measured by evaluating the pre- and post-operative CBCT. Three studies comparing the accuracy of static guides with freehand implant placement and two studies comparing the accuracy of static guides with dynamic guided implant placement were included for meta-analysis. The comparison between static and freehand placement showed a statistically significant difference between placement accuracy, favouring static placement, and the comparison between static and dynamic placement favoured dynamic placement. Conclusion: The accuracy of type I implant placement was enhanced using both static and dynamic guided surgery as compared to the conventional freehand protocol. Dynamic guided surgery showed greater accuracy as compared to the static guided system for type I implant placement.