Alberto Sicilia Daniele Botticelli on behalf of Working Group 3 Computer-guided implant therapy and soft- and hard-tissue aspects. The Third EAO Consensus Conference 2012 Authors’ affiliations: Alberto Sicilia, Section of Periodontics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Oviedo, Spain Daniele Botticelli on behalf of Working Group 3Arminum Research & Dental Education Center, Rimini, Italy Corresponding author: Alberto Sicilia Section of Periodontics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Oviedo, Spain e-mail: asicilia@clinicasicilia.com Conflicts of interest: The authors have declared no potential conflicts. Key words: accuracy, advantages, guided implant placement, implants, keratinized tissue, ridge preservation Abstract Introduction: The objectives of this working group were to update the existing knowledge base in computer-guided implant treatment (accuracy and clinical advantages), to search for scientific evidence on the need for keratinized tissue around implants, and to review recent literature in the search for new insights into ridge preservation after tooth extraction. Material and methods: The literature was systematically searched and critically reviewed. Four manuscripts were prepared, three systematic and one narrative review, that allowed the group to develop evidence-based conclusions, as well as clinical implications and recommendations for future research. Results: The results and conclusions of the reviews were presented in the following papers: • Van Assche et al. (2012) Accuracy of computer-aided implant placement. • Hultin et al. (2012) Clinical advantages of computer-guided implant placement: a systematic review. • Wennstro ¨ m & Derks (2012) Is there a need for keratinized mucosa around implants to maintain health and tissue stability? • Wang & Lang (2012) Ridge preservation after tooth extraction. The group’s consensus statements, clinical implications and implications for future research are presented in this article. The remit of this working group (3) were: 1. To evaluate the accuracy of guided implant placement, as well as to analyse the clinical advantages of this kind of minimally invasive/computer-guided pro- cedure. To cover this topic, two system- atic reviews were carried out, and a meta-analysis on the accuracy of guided surgery was performed. The information is presented in the following papers: • Van Assche et al. (2012) Accuracy of computer-guided implant placement. • Hultin et al. (2012)Clinical advantages of computer-guided implant placement. 2. To analyse the scientific evidence support- ing the need for keratinized mucosa around dental implants. For that purpose the following systematic review was carried out: • Wennstro ¨ m & Derks (2012)Is there a need for keratinized/attached gingiva at implants? 3. Finally the group also searched the recent literature for new insights into the devel- oping area of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction. The resulting liter- ature search was condensed into the fol- lowing narrative review: • Wang & Lang (2012). New insights into ridge preservation after tooth extraction. Accuracy of computer-guided implant placement Aim To assess the accuracy of static computer- guided implant placement. General conclusions from the paper • There are no in vivo RCTs in the dental literature that report the accuracy of com- puter-guided implant placement com- pared with a “brain guided approach.” Members of working group 3: Luca Cordaro, Hugo de Bruyn, Jan Derks, Margareta Hultin, Niklaus P. Lang, Tomas Linkevicius, Victor Palarie, Anders Petersson, Marc Quirynen, Eric Rompen, Mats Trulsson, Nele van Assche, Daniel Wismeijer Date: Accepted 09 June 2012 To cite this article: Sicilia A, Botticelli D. Computer-guided implant therapy and soft- and hard-tissue aspects. The Third EAO Consensus Conference 2012. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 23(Suppl. 6), 2012, 157–161 doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02553.x © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S 157