- 2025-06-04
- Evidence-based dentistry 26(3)
- Meisha Gul
- Baoxin Tao
- Wenjie Zhou
- Feng Wang
- Yiqun Wu
Study Design
- Type
- Meta-Analysis
- Population
- patients with partial or complete tooth loss
- Methods
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, CNKI and Web of Science, published between January 2013 and May 2025
- Funding
- Unclear
Objectives
To compare the accuracy of marker-based and marker-free registration methods in the context of dynamic navigation guided implant surgery for patients with partial or complete tooth loss.Methodology
The review includes research articles written in English and Mandarin Chinese published between January 2013 and May 2025, from databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Web of Science. Both laboratory-based and clinical investigations were taken into account. Thirteen studies, met the specified criteria for inclusion and underwent meta-analysis. Sub-analyses were performed to compare various registration modalities. The assessment of collective evidence was conducted using the GRADE system.Results
No statistically significant differences were observed between registration methodologies i.e; marker based and marker free. Subgroup analysis highlighted a preference for marker-based methods, specifically those utilizing U-shaped markers and bone markers, especially in the lower jaw. No notable variations were noted in terms of time efficiency. Marker-free registration was favored for outcomes reported by patients.Conclusion
Both marker-free and marker-based registration strategies are considered feasible options. Selection should be made based on factors such as practicality, cost, efficiency, clinician preference, and patient-reported outcomes. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the considerable variability among studies, underscoring the necessity for more consistent and dependable data.Prospero registration number
CRD42024504573.