Failure rates associated with guided versus non-guided dental implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nancy Abdelhay; Soni Prasad; Monica Prasad Gibson

doi:10.1038/s41405-021-00086-1

Failure rates associated with guided versus non-guided dental implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BDJ Open. 2021 Aug 18;7(1):31. doi: 10.1038/s41405-021-00086-1.

Authors

Nancy Abdelhay^{1

2}, Soni Prasad³, Monica Prasad Gibson⁴

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Department of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
² Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
³ Graduate Prosthodontics, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
⁴ Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Division of Periodontology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. mgibson@ualberta.ca.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate implant failure rates and their association with guided and free-hand implant placement techniques.

Materials and methods: A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Medline via Ovid, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar. The search was completed in September 2020. Series of meta-analyses were conducted to compare implant failure rates with guided and free-hand techniques.

Results: A total of 3387 articles were identified from the electronic search. After applying the inclusion criteria, eight articles were selected for qualitative assessment and four for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). The included studies had a risk ratio of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.15, 0.58), P < 0.001 for the use of guided implant placement. Implant failure rates were affected by the different placement techniques indicated by the test for overall effect (Z = 3.53, P = 0.0004). The incidence of implant failure in guided surgery versus free-hand surgery was found to be 2.25% and 6.42%, respectively.

Conclusion: Both guided and free-hand implant placement techniques resulted in a high implant survival rate. However, implant failure rates were almost three times higher in the free-hand implant placement category. A guided implant placement approach is recommended for a successful outcome.