ObjectiveComputer‐assisted implant surgery (CAIS) has been introduced as a tool to aid in reaching a more accurate implant position. The aim of this network meta‐analysis was to compare all the available CAIS techniques and obtain collective evidence on the method that offers the highest accuracy compared to freehand implant placement.Materials and MethodsDatabase search was done in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library in addition to extensive search in the gray literature and related systematic reviews, aiming to find clinical studies that compared any CAIS technique with another, or with freehand implant placement. The outcomes evaluated were angle, platform, and apex deviation. The search process ended on March 18, 2024.ResultsThirty‐three studies were included. All CAIS techniques (static with partial or full guidance, dynamic with partial or full guidance, the combination of static and dynamic CAIS) showed significantly less deviation than freehand implant placement, except for the static CAIS with guidance for the pilot drill only. The combination of static and dynamic CAIS ranked best among all other methods. Based on the GRADE system, the certainty of evidence in the outcomes of the meta‐analysis was judged as low or moderate.ConclusionsThe current study demonstrates that computer‐assisted implant surgery provides significantly higher accuracy in implant placement, with the combination of static and dynamic CAIS being the most precise. Nevertheless, future studies are needed, considering the different types, locations, and extents of edentulism in the analyzed investigations, as well as the necessity of obtaining stronger evidence.Trial RegistrationPROSPERIO number: CRD42023482030

中文翻译：

---

不同计算机辅助种植手术方法的牙种植体植入的准确性：临床研究的网络荟萃分析


目的计算机辅助种植手术（CAIS）已被引入作为一种工具来帮助达到更准确的种植位置。该网络荟萃分析的目的是比较所有可用的 CAIS 技术，并获得与徒手种植体植入相比提供最高准确度的方法的集体证据。材料和方法另外在 PubMed、Scopus 和 Cochrane 库中进行数据库搜索在灰色文献和相关系统综述中进行广泛搜索，旨在找到将任何 CAIS 技术与其他技术或徒手种植体植入进行比较的临床研究。评估的结果是角度、平台和顶点偏差。检索过程于 2024 年 3 月 18 日结束。结果纳入了 33 项研究。所有 CAIS 技术（部分或全部引导的静态、部分或全部引导的动态、静态和动态 CAIS 的组合）均显示出比徒手种植体植入明显更小的偏差，但仅带有导向钻引导的静态 CAIS 除外。静态和动态 CAIS 的结合在所有其他方法中排名最好。基于 GRADE 系统，荟萃分析结果的证据质量被判定为低或中等。结论当前的研究表明，计算机辅助种植手术通过静态和动态相结合，提供了显着更高的种植体植入准确性。 CAIS是最精确的。尽管如此，考虑到分析调查中缺齿的不同类型、位置和程度，以及获得更有力证据的必要性，未来的研究是必要的。试验注册PROSPERIO编号：CRD42023482030