Dental implant placement has evolved from conventional freehand techniques toward digitally guided workflows integrating cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM), and dynamic navigation systems. Although guided surgery improves positional accuracy, its clinical relevance compared with freehand placement remains debated. This narrative review, based on a systematic and structured literature search following predefined selection criteria, analyzes studies published between 2000 and 2025 comparing guided and freehand implant placement regarding accuracy, survival, complications, biological outcomes, and workflow efficiency. Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science identified 40 eligible human clinical studies for qualitative synthesis. Guided placement consistently demonstrated greater positional accuracy, with angular deviations of approximately 2–4° versus 5–9° for freehand placement and linear deviations reduced by about 1 mm. Nevertheless, implant survival rates were high and comparable for both techniques, generally exceeding 95% across short- and medium-term follow-up. Overall complication rates were low; guided approaches reduced anatomical risk and improved prosthetic predictability in complex or multi-implant cases, while freehand placement allowed greater intraoperative flexibility and tactile feedback, potentially optimizing primary stability in variable bone conditions. Marginal bone loss and peri-implant tissue outcomes were similar between approaches. Guided workflows required additional planning time and costs but enhanced reproducibility in complex rehabilitations. Guided and freehand implant placement should therefore be considered complementary strategies, with optimal outcomes depending on case selection, surgical expertise, and the balanced integration of digital technologies into contemporary implant practice.
Shabana et al. (Tue,) studied this question.