TABLE 7.
Studies included in the analysis for patient‐reported outcomes/patient‐reported experience
| Author/year | Design | Location | Edentulism | Type of surgery | No. of patients/implants | No. implants/patient | Observation period | Instruments | Main results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Almahrous et al/2020 | RCT | PS | PE |
s‐CAIS FH |
27/75 29/69 |
2.48 | 12 mo |
1. Pain (verbal rating scale) 2. Difficulty of treatment (4‐step Likert scale) 3. Overall satisfaction (4‐step Likert scale) |
No difference in PROs between s‐CAIS and FH of short implants in posterior maxilla at placement and after 1 y |
| Cristache et al/2021 | RCT | PS | SI, PE | s‐CAIS | 49/111 | 2.26 | 12 mo | Patient satisfaction (custom questionnaire ‐ 3 item/0‐10 VAS) | Patients who underwent fully digital workflow of s‐CAIS reported significantly better experience with the dental implant insertion a minimum value of 6 was noticed for PDW and 9 for FDW. |
| Engkawong et al/2021 | RCT | AZ, PS, | SI, PE |
d‐CAIS s‐CAIS FH |
28/64 30/61 30/54 |
2.03 | 14 d |
1. Patient’s perceptions (5‐step Likert scale Yao et al) 2. Patient’s expectations (VAS 10 cm) 3. Healing Outcomes (VAS 10 cm) |
No difference in PROs between s‐CAIS, d‐CAIS and FH. Preoperative expectations appeared similar among all 3 groups, as well as postsurgery PRE |
| Kunavisarut et al/2021 | RCT | PS | SI |
s‐CAIS FH |
20/20 20/20 |
1 | 7 d |
1. MDAS 2. Healing outcomes (VAS 10 cm) 3. Oral health‐related quality of life |
No difference in PROs between s‐CAIS and FH for single‐tooth implant surgery in the posterior area. |
| Lerner et al/2020 | Retrospective study | AZ,PS | PE, FE | s‐CAIS |
12/110 |
9.17 | 12 mo | Patient’s satisfaction (custom questionnaire/5‐step Likert scale) | The great majority of patients reported high level of satisfaction. |
| Peñarrocha, et al/2012 | Case control study | n/a | PE, SI |
s‐CAIS FH |
12/19 12/22 |
1.71 | 3 mo | Healing outcomes (VAS 10 cm) | No significant difference in postoperative PROs between s‐CAIS and FH was reported. |
| SanchoPuchades et al/2019 | RCT | AZ, PS, | PE |
s‐CAIS FH |
47/(n/a) 26/(n/a) |
n/a | 7 d |
1. Healing outcomes (VAS 10 cm) 2. Oral health‐related quality of life (custom questionnaire/100 mm VAS) |
No difference in intraoperative or postoperative PROs between s‐CAIS and FH |
| Søndergaard, et al/2021 | RCT | N/A | SI |
s‐CAIS FH |
13/14 12/12 |
1.04 | n/a |
1. Intraoperative Discomfort (3 items, 0‐10 VAS) 2. Operator (student) satisfaction (0‐10 VAS) |
No significant difference was found in intraoperative discomfort between s‐CAIS and FH implant placement by senior dental students. |
| Vercruyssen et al/2016 | RCT | AZ, PS | FE | s‐CAIS | 15/90 | 6 | 10 d |
1. McGill Pain Questionnaire (a) NWC‐T (b) PRI‐T (c) Healing outcomes (100 mm VAS) (d) level of swelling (100 mm VAS) |
No difference in all PROs after s‐CAIS and immediate or delayed loading. |
| Youk et al/2014 | Questionnaire Survey | AZ, PS, | n/a |
s‐CAIS FH |
37/(n/a) 90/(n/a) |
n/a | n/a |
1. Healing outcomes (custom questionnaire/VAS) 2. Patient satisfaction (custom questionnaire/VAS) |
Patients who underwent computer‐guided surgery reported statistically significant lower degree of pain and higher satisfaction than those under conventional surgery (postop questionnaire survey) |
Abbreviations: AZ, esthetic zone; d‐CAIS, dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery; FDW, Fully Digital Workflow; FE, fully edentulous; FH, freehand placement; MDAS, Modified Dental Anxiety Scale; n/a, the data were not provided in the articles; NWC‐T, number of words chosen; PDW, Partially Digital Workflow; PE, partially edentulous; PRI‐T, pain rating index; PRE, patient‐reported experience; PRO, patient‐reported outcome; PS, posterior; RCT, randomized clinical trial; s‐CAIS, static computer‐assisted implant surgery; SI, single implants; VAS, visual analog scale.