Impacts of Guided Surgery in Implantology on Quality of Life and Patient Satisfaction Perception: Review of Randomized Clinical Trials
Everton Araújo Maciel *
Federal University of Ceará, Sobral, Ceará, Brazil.
Jamilly Vitória Souza Frota
Federal University of Ceará, Sobral, Ceará, Brazil.
Ana Luize Andrade Oliveira
Federal University of Ceará, Sobral, Ceará, Brazil.
Nara André Diniz
Federal University of Ceará, Sobral, Ceará, Brazil.
Francisco Taylan Santos de Lima
Federal University of Ceará, Sobral, Ceará, Brazil.
Savio Martins Alves
Federal University of Ceará, Sobral, Ceará, Brazil.
Marcelo Sousa Roberto
Federal University of Ceará, Sobral, Ceará, Brazil.
Calebe Lamonier de Oliveira Costa Paiva
Federal University of Ceará, Sobral, Ceará, Brazil.
Guilherme Salles Ottoboni
State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Poliana Bastos Ottoboni
Federal University of Ceará, Sobral, Ceará, Brazil.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Background: Guided implant surgery, including static and dynamic computer-assisted techniques, has been increasingly adopted in implant dentistry to improve surgical accuracy and predictability. Beyond clinical outcomes, its influence on patient-reported outcomes such as pain, satisfaction, and oral health-related quality of life remains clinically relevant but inconsistently reported across studies.
Aims: This review aims to evaluate the impact of guided implant surgery on patient quality of life and satisfaction compared with the conventional surgical approach.
Study Design: Narrative review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
Methodology: The research question was structured using the PICO framework. A literature search was conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and SciELO databases, covering the period from January 2016 to March 2026. Randomized clinical trials comparing guided surgery (static or dynamic) with the conventional technique and evaluating patient-reported outcomes, such as pain and satisfaction, were included. The search identified 524 records. Study screening and selection were conducted using the Rayyan platform to organize records and support the evaluation process. After duplicate removal and application of the eligibility criteria, 7 studies were included in the final analysis.
Results: No significant clinical differences were observed between guided and conventional surgery regarding pain, edema, and analgesic consumption. However, guided surgery demonstrated positive effects on subjective outcomes, including perceived safety, comfort, and treatment expectations. Digital technologies appeared to reduce technical variability, particularly among less experienced clinicians, contributing to greater predictability, reduced operative stress, and improved patient experience. Although surgical time varied across studies, it did not negatively affect patient satisfaction. Fully guided surgery showed a tendency toward higher satisfaction rates and reduced early postoperative symptoms.
Conclusion: Guided surgery does not appear to provide superiority in isolated clinical outcomes, but it may improve the overall patient experience, particularly regarding perceived safety and predictability. Its benefits seem to be more evident in anatomically complex cases and among clinicians with limited surgical experience.
Keywords: Guided surgery, quality of life, dental implants, oral rehabilitation, patient satisfaction