# Methodologies for Assessing the Dimensional Accuracy of Computer-Guided Static Implant Surgery in Clinical Settings: A Scoping Review

## TL;DR

This review finds that inconsistent methods for measuring dental implant accuracy make it hard to compare results across studies.

## Contribution

The study systematically maps and analyzes the lack of standardization in assessing dimensional accuracy of computer-guided implant surgery.

## Key findings

- Twenty-one studies showed significant methodological diversity in measuring implant accuracy.
- Reference systems like CBCT and intraoral scanning were used inconsistently, affecting reported accuracy metrics.
- Variability in software and statistical summaries further limits comparability of results.

## Abstract

Background: Computer-guided static implant surgery (CGSIS) is widely adopted to enhance the precision of dental implant placement. However, significant heterogeneity in reported accuracy values complicates evidence-based clinical decision-making. This variance is likely attributable to a fundamental lack of standardization in the methodologies used to assess dimensional accuracy. Objective: This scoping review aimed to systematically map, synthesize, and analyze the clinical methodologies used to quantify the dimensional accuracy of CGSIS. Methods: The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase was performed from inception to October 2025. Clinical studies quantitatively comparing planned versus achieved implant positions in human patients were included. Data were charted on study design, guide support type, data acquisition methods, reference systems for superimposition, measurement software, and accuracy metrics. Results: The analysis of 21 included studies revealed extensive methodological heterogeneity. Key findings included the predominant use of two distinct reference systems: post-operative CBCT (n = 12) and intraoral scanning with scan bodies (n = 6). A variety of proprietary and third-party software packages (e.g., coDiagnostiX, Geomagic, Mimics) were employed for superimposition, utilizing different alignment algorithms. Critically, this heterogeneity in measurement approach directly manifests in widely varying reported values for core accuracy metrics. In addition, the definitions and reporting of core accuracy metrics—specifically global coronal deviation (range of reported means: 0.55–1.70 mm), global apical deviation (0.76–2.50 mm), and angular deviation (2.11–7.14°)—were inconsistent. For example, these metrics were also reported using different statistical summaries (e.g., means with standard deviations or medians with interquartile ranges). Conclusions: The comparability and synthesis of evidence on CGSIS accuracy are significantly limited by non-standardized measurement approaches. The reported ranges of deviation values are a direct consequence of this methodological heterogeneity, not a comparison of implant system performance. Our findings highlight an urgent need for a consensus-based minimum reporting standard for future clinical research in this field to ensure reliable and translatable evidence.