Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research
Date Submitted: Aug 19, 2022
Date Accepted: Nov 25, 2022
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Accuracy of augmented reality-assisted navigation in implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
ABSTRACT
Background:
The recently developed augmented reality (AR) implant navigation system, which employs innovative image technology in the form of AR to overlay a virtual presurgical plan over the actual surgical site, has attracted great interest.
Objective:
This study aimed to assess the accuracy of recently developed augmented reality implant navigation systems (AR navigation) and compare it to that of the free-hand method (FH), template-based static guidance (TG), and conventional navigation (CN).
Methods:
Individual search strategies were employed in PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to search for articles published up to March 21, 2022.
Results:
Among the 425 articles retrieved, 15 articles were considered eligible for narrative review, eight articles were considered for single-arm meta-analysis, and four articles were included in two-arm meta-analysis. The mean lateral, global, depth, and angular deviations of the implant placed using AR navigation were 0.90 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78−1.02), 1.18 mm (95% CI: 0.95−1.41), 0.78 (95% CI: 0.48−1.08) mm, and 3.96° (95% CI: 3.45−4.48), respectively. The accuracy of AR navigation was significantly higher than that of the FH method (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −1.01; 95% CI: −1.47 to −0.55; P<.01) and the CN method (SMD = −0.46; 95% CI: −0.64 to −0.29; P<.01). However, the accuracy of AR navigation and the TG method was similar (SMD = 0.06; 95% CI: −0.62 to 0.74; P=.55).
Conclusions:
Accuracy of AR navigation was acceptable, comparable to those of the TG method and superior to those of the FH and CN methods. This review highlights the possibility of using AR navigation as an effective and accurate surgical guide for implant placement. Clinical Trial: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (Registration No. CRD42022323650).
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.