| SN0 |
Authors |
Year of publicati on |
Type of study |
Primary outcome |
Secon dary outcome |
No of implants |
Comparison |
System used |
Site operated |
Conclusion |
| 1 |
Kaewsiri D, et al 43
|
May 2019 |
RCT |
Accuracy |
- |
60 |
Static vs dynamic navigation |
Straumann system |
- |
Dynamic =static |
| 2 |
Yimarj P, et al 45
|
Dec 2020 |
RCT |
Accuracy of position |
paralle lism |
60 |
Static vs dynamic navigation |
IRIS-100; EPEDinc, Taiwan |
Not specified |
Similar accuracy between static anddynamic system |
| 3 |
Wu D, et al 46
|
Dec 2020 |
Retros pectiv e study |
Accuracy |
Experience Implant site |
38-dynamic 57- static |
Static vs dynamic |
DHC-DI3E,Suzhou digital healthcare, China |
Teeth specified (anterior, premolar,molar) |
Both accurate. No influence by experience and implant site |
| 4 |
Mediavilla Guzmán A, et al 27
|
Dec 2019 |
RCT |
Accuracy |
- |
40 (20x2) |
Static vs dynamic |
Navident, ClaroNav, Toronto, canada |
Not specified |
Both static and dynamic navigation allows accurate implant placement |
| 5 |
Block M, et al 22
|
Jan 2017 |
prospe ctive |
Accuracy |
- |
100 |
Freehand vs static vs dynamic |
X-guide X-Nav technology |
Maxilla and mandible |
Accuracy of static and dynamic same |
