TABLE 8.
Studies reporting duration of the surgery with computer‐assisted implant surgery vs conventional implant placement
| Author/y | Design | Location | Edentulism | Type of surgery | No. of patients/implants | No. implants/patient | Observation period | Software | Studied outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Almahrous et al/2020 | RCT | PS | PE |
s‐CAIS FH |
27/75 29/69 |
3 2 |
12 mo | n/a |
FH: 74.56 ± 31.66 min s‐CAIS (short implants): 72.79 ± 31.65 No significant difference was found |
| Engkawong et al/2021 | RCT | AZ, PS | SI, PE |
d‐CAIS s‐CAIS FH |
28/64 30/61 30/54 |
2.28 2.03 1.8 |
14 d |
1. IRIS‐100 (EPED Inc., Taiwan) 2. coDiagnostiX version 9 (Dental Wings, Canada) |
1. FH: 70.3 min ± 47.08 was significantly shorter duration than s‐CAIS: 89.70 min ± 45.75. 2. d‐CAIS: 70.95 ± 42.48 took significantly shorter duration than s‐CAIS: 89.70 min ± 45.75. 3. No significant difference between d‐CAIS and FH. |
| Kaewsiri et al/2019 | RCT | AZ,PS | SI |
d‐CAIS s‐CAIS |
30/30 30/30 |
1 1 |
12 mo |
1. IRIS‐100 (EPED Inc., Taiwan) 2. coDiagnostiX version 9.7 (Dental Wings, Canada) |
d‐CAIS: 15 min (12‐20 min) s‐CAIS: 18 min (13‐25 min) d‐CAIS + GBR: 40 min (30‐45 min) s‐CAIS + GBR: 48 min (30‐90 min). No significant difference between s‐CAIS and d‐CAIS was found. |
| Mangano et al/2018 | Prospective clinical study | AZ, PS | SI, PE | s‐CAIS | 19/36 | 1.89 | 12 mo |
1. EXOCAD (Darmstad, Germany) 2. SMOP (Swissmeda, Switzerland) |
Surgical guides with nonoptimal fit required 13.6 ± 1.5 min per implant as opposed to 11.4 ± 2.9 min per implant with optimal fit guides. |
| Mouhyi et al/2019 | Retrospective study | AZ, PS | SI, PE | s‐CAIS | 38/110 | 2.89 | 12 mo | SMOP (Swissmeda, Switzerland) |
1. The mean duration was 23.7 ± 6.7 min per template. (median 22, 95% CI: 21.7‐25.7) 2. The mean duration was 6.5 min per implant. |
| Sancho‐Puchades et al/2019 | RCT | AZ, PS | PE |
s‐CAIS FH |
47/n/a 26/n/a |
n/a n/a |
7 d |
1. Simplant (Dentsply Sirona, USA) 2. SMOP (Swissmeda, Switzerland) |
FH 92.88 min (± 39.8) s‐CAIS (a) 113.77 (±43.77) s‐CAIS (b) 142.77 (±47.25) No statistical analysis was conducted |
| Søndergaard et al 2021 | RCT | PS | SI |
s‐CAIS FH |
13/14 12/12 |
1.07 1 |
n/a | MySimplant service (Dentsply Sirona, USA) |
s‐CAIS: 70.65 min FH: 70.13 min No significant difference was found |
| Younes et al/2019 | RCT | PS | PE |
s‐CAIS FH |
10/21 11/26 |
2.1 2.36 |
3 mo | Simplant 17.0 (Dentsply Sirona, USA) |
s‐CAIS (fully): 40.10 min s‐CAIS (partial): 41.36 FH: 58.64 min s‐CAIS was significant faster than FH. |
Abbreviations: AZ, esthetic zone; CI, confidence interval; d‐CAIS, dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery; FH, freehand placement; GBR, Guided Bone Regeneration; n/a, the data were not provided in the articles; PE, partially edentulous; PS, posterior; RCT, randomized clinical trial; s‐CAIS, static computer‐assisted implant surgery; SI, single implants.