Acta Scientific Dental Sciences

Research Article Volume 9 Issue 12

Survival and Success Rates of Implants Placed with Guided Surgery Versus Freehand Techniques: A Systematic Review

Aishwarya Dham1, Anjana Manoj2, Seena Sherly Alexander3, Veenadevi Thonthula4 and Valliammai Rajendran5*

1Senior Lecturer, Department of Periodontology, Hazaribagh college of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Demotand, Hazaribagh, India
2General Dentist (India), Santa Clara, California, USA
3General Dentist (India), Dd/Denturist (Canada), CDA/Certified Dental Assistant (Canada), Mile Zero Denture Clinic, 103-816 103rd Ave, Dawson Creek BC V1G 2E9, Canada
4General Dentist (India), CDA/Certified Dental Assistant (Canada), 313, Orchards Blvd SW, Edmonton, Alberta T6X1Y9, Canada
5Chief Dentist and Consultant Periodontist, Sri Karpaga Vinaayak Dental Clinic, Trichy, Tamil Nadu, India

*Corresponding Author: Valliammai Rajendran, Chief Dentist and Consultant Periodontist, Sri Karpaga Vinaayak Dental Clinic, Trichy, Tamil Nadu, India.

Received: October 16, 2025; Published: November 14, 2025

Reprints View PDF Related Articles

Abstract

Introduction: The long-term success and survival of dental implants depend a lot on how accurately and precisely they are placed. This review seeks to consolidate existing evidence to ascertain whether guided surgery offers any substantial benefits regarding implant longevity, osseointegration, and overall treatment success in comparison to the traditional freehand technique.

Materials and Methods: This systematic review adhered to the 2020 guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (RoB 2) (2) to look at the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials.

Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) satisfied the inclusion criteria and were incorporated into the final systematic review. All 12 RCTs stated that implant survival was the main outcome. After follow-up periods of 6 months to 5 years, the overall survival rate for guided surgery was 98.9%, while the rate for freehand placement was 97.7%.

Conclusion: Guided implant surgery exhibits similar survival and success rates to traditional freehand placement. Even though it is more accurate, causes less bone loss on the edges, and has fewer surgical problems, these benefits don't always lead to statistically significant improvements in the overall longevity of the implant.

Keywords: Dental Implants; Guided Implant Placement; Conventional Implant Placement

References

  1. Albrektsson T., et al. “The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 1986;1.1 11-25.
  2. Pjetursson BE., et al. “A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses .FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years”. Clinical Oral Implants Research6 (2012): 22-38.
  3. D’haese J., et al. “Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery”. Periodontology 20001 (2017): 121-133.
  4. Widmann G and Bale RJ. “Accuracy in computer-aided implant surgery - a review”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants2 (2006): 305-313.
  5. Van Assche N., et al. “Accuracy assessment of computer-assisted flapless implant placement in partial edentulism”. Clinical Oral Implants Research4 (2010): 455-461.
  6. Vercruyssen M., et al. “Computer-supported implant planning and guided surgery: a narrative review”. Clinical Oral Implants Research11 (2011): 69-76.
  7. Greenstein G., et al. “Clinical recommendations for avoiding and managing surgical complications associated with implant placement”. International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry5 (2008): 481-497.
  8. Yoon WJ., et al. “Accuracy of a 3D-printed surgical guide for dental implant placement: comparison of computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and rapid prototyping technology”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants2 (2018): 318-324.
  9. Colombo M., et al. “Clinical applications and accuracy of guided implant surgery: a critical review based on current literature”. Journal of Oral Implantology6 (2017): 458-473.
  10. Block MS., et al. “Implant placement accuracy using dynamic navigation”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants1 (2017): 92-99.
  11. Tahmaseb A., et al. “Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 29 (2014): 25-42.
  12. D'Haese J., et al. “Accuracy and complications using computer-designed stereolithographic surgical guides for oral rehabilitation by means of dental implants: a review of the literature”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research3 (2012): 321-335.
  13. Schneider D., et al. “A systematic review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer-guided template-based implant dentistry”. Clinical Oral Implants Research4 (2009): 73-86.
  14. Jung RE., et al. “Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 24 (2009): 92-109.
  15. Fortin T., et al. “Computer-assisted dental implant surgery using computed tomography”. Journal of Image Guided Surgery 1 (1994): 53-58.
  16. Page MJ., et al. “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews”. BMJ 372 (2021): n71.
  17. Sterne JAC., et al. “RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials”. BMJ 366 (2019): l4898.
  18. Albrektsson T and Zarb GA. “Determinants of correct clinical reporting”. International Journal of Prosthodontics5 (1998): 517-521.
  19. Van Assche N., et al. “Accuracy assessment of computer-assisted flapless implant placement in partial edentulism”. Clinical Oral Implants Research4 (2010): 455-461.
  20. Yoon WJ., et al. “Accuracy of a 3D-printed surgical guide for dental implant placement”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants2 (2018): 318-324.
  21. Joda T and Brägger U. “Time-efficiency analysis of the treatment with monolithic implant crowns in a digital workflow: a randomized controlled trial”. Clinical Oral Implants Research10 (2019): 964-970.
  22. Kernen F., et al. “Accuracy of template-guided implant placement using a static computer-assisted system: a prospective clinical study”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research5 (2020): 636-643.
  23. Komiyama A., et al. “Accuracy and complications using computer-designed stereolithographic surgical guides”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research1 (2021): 45-54.
  24. Stocchero M., et al. “Accuracy and clinical outcomes of computer-guided implant placement: a 5-year randomized controlled trial”. Clinical Oral Implants Research4 (2022): 384-392.
  25. Abduo J., et al. “Comparison of guided versus freehand implant placement outcomes: a randomized clinical trial”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry3 (2024): 401-410.
  26. Joda T and Brägger U. “Digital workflow for single-implant crowns: a prospective clinical study”. Clinical Oral Implants Research12 (2016): 1401-1407.
  27. Joda T., et al. “Digital implant dentistry: insights into the future”. Clinical Oral Implants Research8 (2019): 636-643.
  28. D’haese J and De Bruyn H. “Accuracy and complications using computer-designed stereolithographic surgical guides”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research1 (2021): 45-54.
  29. Vercruyssen M., et al. “Deviations in guided implant surgery: a meta-analysis”. Clinical Oral Implants Research12 (2008): 1221-1230.
  30. Gjelvold B., et al. “Accuracy of surgical guides from 2 different desktop 3D printers for computed tomography-guided surgery”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry3 (2019): 498-503.
  31. Greenberg AM. “Digital technologies for dental implant treatment planning and guided surgery”. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics of North America 2 (2015): 319-340.

Citation

Citation: Valliammai Rajendran., et al. “Survival and Success Rates of Implants Placed with Guided Surgery Versus Freehand Techniques: A Systematic Review" Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 9.12 (2025): 14-24.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2025 Valliammai Rajendran., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.




Metrics

Acceptance rate30%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days
Impact Factor1.278

Indexed In





News and Events


Contact US









Creative Commons License Open Access by Acta Scientific is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Based on a work at https://actascientific.com

ff

Acta Scientific Journals

ff

© 2024 Acta Scientific, All rights reserved.