Time and costs related to computer‐assisted versus non‐computer‐assisted implant planning and surgery. A systematic review

AIM: To study the time and costs involved with computer‐assisted versus non‐computer‐assisted implant planning and placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on the PICO question, “In patients receiving dental implants, is computer‐assisted implant planning and surgery (CAIPS) compared to non‐computer‐assisted implant planning and surgery (non‐CAIPS) beneficial in terms of treatment related costs and time involved?”, a search path was created to perform an electronic search in the databases PubMed, PubMed Central, EMBASE, and Cochrane. The publication period of eligible publications extended from 01.01.2005 to 04.05.2020. Four independent reviewers reviewed the literature to identify studies that met the eligibility inclusion criteria. A further manual search of articles was performed, and gray literature was excluded. Corresponding authors of potentially eligible manuscripts were contacted for further information. RESULTS: Of the 1354 retrieved titles after the search were screened. Thirty‐one articles have been identified to read the full text, resulting in four articles to be analyzed for the present review all of which were RCTs. In total, 182 partially and completely edentulous patients were treated with 416 implants following either non‐computer‐assisted or computer‐assisted implant planning and surgery to determine the duration of the single working steps and the financial aspects of the different procedures. CONCLUSIONS: When evaluating the time and costs involved with the diagnostic and planning procedures in computer‐assisted implant planning and surgery workflow protocols, one can summarize that these are higher than in the non‐computer‐assisted workflow protocols. The time involved with the procedures appears to be the driving factor when it comes to economic considerations. On the basis of the conclusions, also the time for the prosthetic restoration should be taken into account.