Accuracy of surgical templates with and without metallic sleeves in case of partial arch restorations: A systematic review

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate whether there were any differences in the three-dimensional accuracy and the implant survival rate of implants placed using computer-assisted planning and surgical templates with or without metallic sleeves.

Sources: This systematic review was written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered to the PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) database.

Study selection: PICOS (population, intervention, control, outcomes, and studies) question was assessed, too. Search strategy encompassed the online (MedLine) literature from 1990 up to December 2020 published in English, and evaluating the accuracy of surgical templates with and without metallic sleeves in partial or complete patients. Only in vivo, randomized controlled trial and observational studies were included. Quality assessment of selected full text articles was performed according to the CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) statement guidelines, respectively. For data analysis, the three-dimensional accuracy and the overall implant survival rate was calculated and compared between implants placed using surgical templates with or without metallic sleeves.

Data: A total of 12 articles fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data from 264 patients with 614 implants were subjected to quality assessment (templates with metallic sleeves: 279 implants and 136 patients; templates without metallic sleeves: 335 implants and 128 patients). In all the three deviation parameters (angular, vertical, and horizontal), the differences in average accuracy were noticed (angular 2.33° ± 2.01° versus 3.09° ± 1.65°, vertical: 0.62 ± 0.36 [mm] versus 0.95 ± 0.42 [mm]; and horizontal: 0.62 ± 0.41 [mm] and 1.11 ± 0.57 [mm]. No differences was found regarding overall implant survival rate (0.4891).

Conclusions: With the limitations of the present study, the surgical templates without metallic sleeves demonstrated high level of accuracy in all the three-dimensional measurements, when used to rehabilitate partially edentulous patients. Further randomized controlled trials, reporting according to the CONSORT guidelines are needed to confirm that the differences in accuracy depended on the type of used templates.

Keywords: Accuracy; Dental implants; Guided surgery; Sleeveless templates; Surgical templates; Survival rate.