OBJECTIVE: The present systematic review aimed to investigate the accuracy of zygomatic implant (ZI) placement using dynamic computer-aided surgery (d-CAIS), static computer-aided surgery (s-CAIS), and a free-hand approach in patients with severe atrophic edentulous maxilla and/or deficient maxilla.
METHODS: Electronic and manual literature searches until May 2023 were performed in the PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Clinical trials and cadaver studies were selected. The primary outcome was planned/placed deviation. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate the survival of ZI and surgical complications. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted and meta-regression was utilized to compare fiducial registration amounts for d-CAIS and the different designs of s-CAIS.
RESULTS: A total of 14 studies with 511 ZIs were included (Nobel Biocare: 274, Southern Implant: 42, SIN Implant: 16, non-mentioned: 179). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the d-CAIS group were 1.81 mm (95% CI: 1.34-2.29) at the entry point and 2.95 mm (95% CI: 1.66-4.24) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 3.49 degrees (95% CI: 2.04-4.93). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the s-CAIS group were 1.19 mm (95% CI: 0.83-1.54) at the entry point and 1.80 mm (95% CI: 1.10-2.50) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 2.15 degrees (95% CI: 1.43-2.88). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the free-hand group were 2.04 mm (95% CI: 1.69-2.39) at the entry point and 3.23 mm (95% CI: 2.34-4.12) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 4.92 degrees (95% CI: 3.86-5.98). There was strong evidence of differences in the average entry, apex, and angular deviation between the navigation, surgical guide, and free-hand groups (p < 0.01). A significant inverse correlation was observed between the number of fiducial screws and the planned/placed deviation regarding entry, apex, and angular measurements.
CONCLUSIONS: Using d-CAIS and modified s-CAIS for ZI surgery has shown clinically acceptable outcomes regarding average entry, apex, and angular deviations. The maximal deviation values were predominantly observed in the conventional s-CAIS. Surgeons should be mindful of potential deviations and complications regardless of the decision making in different guide approaches.

Three-dimensional (3D) printing is now a widely recognized surgical tool in oral and maxillofacial surgery. However, little is known about its benefits for the surgical management of benign maxillary and mandibular tumors and cysts.
The objective of this systematic review was to assess the contribution of 3D printing in the management of benign jaw lesions.
A systematic review, registered in PROSPERO, was conducted using PubMed and Scopus databases, up to December 2022, by following PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting 3D printing applications for the surgical management of benign jaw lesions were considered.
This review included thirteen studies involving 74 patients. The principal use of 3D printing was to produce anatomical models, intraoperative surgical guides, or both, allowing for the successful removal of maxillary and mandibular lesions. The greatest reported benefits of printed models were the visualization of the lesion and its anatomical relationships to anticipate intraoperative risks. Surgical guides were designed as drilling locating guides or osteotomy cutting guides and contributed to decreasing operating time and improving the accuracy of the surgery.
Using 3D printing technologies to manage benign jaw lesions results in less invasive procedures by facilitating precise osteotomies, reducing operating times, and complications. More studies with higher levels of evidence are needed to confirm our results.

The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate whether there were any differences in the three-dimensional accuracy and the implant survival rate of implants placed using computer-assisted planning and surgical templates with or without metallic sleeves.
This systematic review was written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered to the PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) database.
PICOS (population, intervention, control, outcomes, and studies) question was assessed, too. Search strategy encompassed the online (MedLine) literature from 1990 up to December 2020 published in English, and evaluating the accuracy of surgical templates with and without metallic sleeves in partial or complete patients. Only in vivo, randomized controlled trial and observational studies were included. Quality assessment of selected full text articles was performed according to the CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) statement guidelines, respectively. For data analysis, the three-dimensional accuracy and the overall implant survival rate was calculated and compared between implants placed using surgical templates with or without metallic sleeves.
A total of 12 articles fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data from 264 patients with 614 implants were subjected to quality assessment (templates with metallic sleeves: 279 implants and 136 patients; templates without metallic sleeves: 335 implants and 128 patients). In all the three deviation parameters (angular, vertical, and horizontal), the differences in average accuracy were noticed (angular 2.33° ± 2.01° versus 3.09° ± 1.65°, vertical: 0.62 ± 0.36 [mm] versus 0.95 ± 0.42 [mm]; and horizontal: 0.62 ± 0.41 [mm] and 1.11 ± 0.57 [mm]. No differences was found regarding overall implant survival rate (0.4891).
With the limitations of the present study, the surgical templates without metallic sleeves demonstrated high level of accuracy in all the three-dimensional measurements, when used to rehabilitate partially edentulous patients. Further randomized controlled trials, reporting according to the CONSORT guidelines are needed to confirm that the differences in accuracy depended on the type of used templates.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of current applications of 3D technologies in surgical management of tibial plateau fractures and to assess whether 3D-assisted surgery results in improved clinical outcome as compared to surgery based on conventional imaging modalities.
METHODS: A literature search was performed in Pubmed and Embase for articles reporting on the use of 3D techniques in operative management of tibial plateau fractures. This systematic review was performed in concordance with the PRISMA-guidelines. Methodological quality and risk of bias was assessed according to the guidelines of the McMaster Critical Appraisal. Differences in terms of operation time, blood loss, fluoroscopy frequency, intra-operative revision rates and patient-reported outcomes between 3D-assisted and conventional surgery were assessed. Data were pooled using the inverse variance weighting method in RevMan.
RESULTS: Twenty articles evaluating 948 patients treated with 3D-assisted surgery and 126 patients with conventional surgery were included. Five different concepts of 3D-assisted surgery were identified: \'3D virtual visualization\', \'3D printed hand-held fracture models\', \'Pre-contouring of osteosynthesis plates\', \'3D printed surgical guides\', and \'Intra-operative 3D imaging\'. 3D-assisted surgery resulted in reduced operation time (104.7 vs. 126.4 min; P < 0.01), less blood loss (241 ml vs. 306 ml; P < 0.01), decreased frequency of fluoroscopy (5.8 vs. 9.1 times; P < 0.01). No differences in functional outcome was found (Hospital for Special Surgery Knee-Rating Scale: 88.6 vs. 82.8; P = 0.23).
CONCLUSIONS: Five concepts of 3D-assisted surgical management of tibial plateau fractures emerged over the last decade. These include 3D virtual fracture visualization, 3D-printed hand-held fracture models for surgical planning, 3D-printed models for pre-contouring of osteosynthesis plates, 3D-printed surgical guides, and intra-operative 3D imaging. 3D-assisted surgery may have a positive effect on operation time, blood loss, and fluoroscopy frequency.

BACKGROUND: Accurate implant placement is essential in reducing post-treatment complications and in ensuring a successful treatment outcome.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of fully-guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS) using partially- and fully-digital workflows.
METHODS: Electronic and manual literature searches were performed to collect evidence concerning the accuracy of fully-guided s-CAIS procedures utilizing tooth-supported guides. Quantitative analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of partially- and fully-digital workflows, and survival rates and complications were qualitatively analyzed.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies, including 6 randomized controlled trials and 7 prospective clinical studies, were selected for quantitative and qualitative synthesis. A total of 669 implants in 325 patients using s-CAIS were available for review. Meta-analysis of the accuracy revealed a total mean angular deviation of 2.68° (95% CI: 2.32°-3.03°); mean global coronal deviation of 1.03 mm (95% CI: 0.88-1.18 mm); mean global apical deviation of 1.33 mm (95% CI: 1.17-1.50 mm); and mean depth deviation of 0.59 mm (95% CI: 0.46-0.70 mm). Minimal differences were found between the two different workflows. Few complications were reported, and survival rates were between 97.8% to 100% (range of follow-up: 12 to 24 months) in the available studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Similar accuracy is obtained when implants are placed in partially edentulous patients using fully-guided s-CAIS, independently of the workflow utilized.

BACKGROUND: The novel concept of guided endodontics has been reported as an effective method to obtain safe and reliable results in root canal treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate by means of a systematic review the clinical applications, accuracy and limitations of guided endodontic treatment.
METHODS: A search of the literature was performed on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases, until 25 April 2019. No language or year restrictions were applied.
METHODS: Articles that answered the research question, including case reports, in vitro and ex vivo studies were included. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers.
UNASSIGNED: Quality assessment was done using STROBE, CARE and Modified CONSORT guidelines for observational, case reports and pre-clinical studies, respectively.
RESULTS: A total of 22 articles, including fifteen case reports, six pre-clinical studies (in vitro and ex vivo studies) and one observational study, were included.
CONCLUSIONS: Even though the level of evidence is low, and the methodology described among studies heterogeneous, all articles describe guided access cavity preparation and guided surgery as being highly accurate and successful techniques when comparing the drilled path to the planned treatment. More studies with a larger number of patients are necessary to obtain significant conclusions.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the scientific literature for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS).
METHODS: A PICO strategy was executed using an electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL), plus manual search up to 15-06-2017 focusing on clinical studies investigating s-CAIS with regard to patients\' pain & discomfort, economics and/or intra-operative complications. Search strategy was assembled from multiple conjunctions of MeSH Terms and unspecific free-text words. Assessment of risk of bias in selected studies was made at a \"trial level\" applying the Cochrane Collaboration Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale, respectively.
RESULTS: The systematic search identified 112 titles. Seventy abstracts were screened, and 14 full texts were included for analysis. A total of 484 patients were treated with s-CAIS for placement of 2,510 implants. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, meta-analyses could not be performed.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of identified studies investigating s-CAIS for PROMs was low. Scientifically proven recommendations for clinical routine cannot be given at this time; however, the number of clinical complications with s-CAIS seems to be negligible and comparable to conventional implant surgery. s-CAIS may offer a beneficial treatment option in edentulous cases if a flapless approach is applicable. Nevertheless, the economic effects in terms of time efficiency and treatment costs are unclear. Clinical investigations with well-designed RCTs investigating PROMs with standardized parameters are compellingly necessary for the field of s-CAIS.

To systematically review the current dental literature regarding clinical accuracy of guided implant surgery and to analyze the involved clinical factors.
PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed. Clinical studies with the following outcome measurements were included: (1) angle deviation, (2) deviation at the entry point, and (3) deviation at the apex. The involved clinical factors were further evaluated.
Fourteen clinical studies from 1951 articles initially identified met the inclusion criteria. Meta-regression analysis revealed a mean deviation at the entry point of 1.25 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22-1.29), 1.57 mm (95% CI: 1.53-1.62) at the apex, and 4.1° in angle (95% CI: 3.97-4.23). A statistically significant difference (P < .001) was observed in angular deviations between the maxilla and mandible. Partially guided surgery showed a statistically significant greater deviation in angle (P < .001), at the entry point (P < .001), and at the apex (P < .001) compared with totally guided surgery. The outcome of guided surgery with flapless approach indicated significantly more accuracy in angle (P < .001), at the entry point (P < .001), and at apex (P < .001). Significant differences were observed in angular deviation based on the use of fixation screw (P < .001).
The position of guide, guide fixation, type of guide, and flap approach could influence the accuracy of computer-aided implant surgery. A totally guided system using fixation screws with a flapless protocol demonstrated the greatest accuracy. Future clinical research should use a standardized measurement technique for improved accuracy.

OBJECTIVE: To give an overview of the workflow from examination to planning and execution, including possible errors and pitfalls, in order to justify the indications for guided surgery.
METHODS: An electronic literature search of the PubMed database was performed with the intention of collecting relevant information on computer-supported implant planning and guided surgery.
RESULTS: Currently, different computer-supported systems are available to optimize and facilitate implant surgery. The transfer of the implant planning (in a software program) to the operative field remains however the most difficult part. Guided implant surgery clearly reduces the inaccuracy, defined as the deviation between the planned and the final position of the implant in the mouth. It might be recommended for the following clinical indications: need for minimal invasive surgery, optimization of implant planning and positioning (i.e. aesthetic cases), and immediate restoration.
CONCLUSIONS: The digital technology rapidly evolves and new developments have resulted in further improvement of the accuracy. Future developments include the reduction of the number of steps needed from the preoperative examination of the patient to the actual execution of the guided surgery. The latter will become easier with the implementation of optical scans and 3D-printing.

This systematic review evaluated the implant survival rate, changes in marginal bone level, and complications associated with guided surgery for the treatment of fully edentulous patients followed up for longer than 1 year. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to retrieve studies published up until July 2014 that met predefined eligibility criteria. Thirteen studies were included. In studies on the guided surgery technique, a survival rate of 97.2% and a mean marginal bone loss of 1.45 mm were found during 1-4 years of follow-up. However, associated complications, such as implant loss, prosthesis or surgical guide fractures, and low primary stability, were often found, and there is a learning curve to achieve treatment success. Further longitudinal comparative studies should improve the technique and its success rate.