## 2 Materials and Methods  
This review has been registered in PROSPERO (number CRD42023483194). The search was performed using keywords based on the following PICO question: Population (P) = Patients with dental implants placed using a prosthetically guided protocol. Intervention (I) = Patients who had implants placed in a prosthetically guided manner based on digital planning. Comparison/control (C) = Existence of a control group in each study. Outcome/Result (O) = Accuracy. Differences and discrepancies in millimeters/microns were evaluated between the final position of the dental implants placed virtually as planned with respect to the prosthesis with a digital workflow. Coronal deviation (mm), apical deviation (mm), depth deviation (mm), and angular deviation (\({}^{\circ}\)) were also evaluated. As stated, the following keywords were used for this review:  
Figure 1: Workflow chart of implant placement using digital prosthetically-derived surgical guides. All four; all six; dental implant loading; dental implants; dental prosthesis; flapless implant surgery; full-arch implant prosthesis; immediate; immediate loading; implant-supported; edentulous/rehabilitation; jaw; edentulous/surgery; surgery; survival analysis; template-guided surgery; tilted implants; treatment outcome; decision making; edentulous maxilla; three-dimensional; virtual implant planning; accuracy of implant position; free hand implant surgery; static computer-assisted implant surgery; dimensional measurement accuracy; edentulous jaw; accuracy; parallelism; stereolithography. Computer-aided design; computer-aided manufacturing; computer-aided surgery; partially edentulous; patient-reported outcome measures: static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS). Therefore, advanced search strategies were established for articles related to the accuracy of digital prosthetically-derived surgical guides for dental implants in the PubMed database as follows:  
(\"Dental Implants\" [Mesh]) AND \"Digital Technology\" [Mesh];  
((\"Dental Implants\" [Mesh]) AND \"Digital Technology\" [Mesh]) AND \"Computer-Aided Design\" [Mesh]) AND \"Dental Prosthesis\" [Mesh]. The literature was reviewed by applying the following inclusion and exclusion criteria: Inclusion criteria:  
1. Patients with dental implants placed using a prosthetic protocol. 2. In vivo studies. 3. Evidence published in the last 10 years (2013-2023). 4. The literature was written in English. 5. Studies with restrictive digital prosthetically-derived surgical guides for dental implants. 6. Partially or totally edentulous patients who required dental implants placed by means of a prosthetic protocol. 7. Randomized and nonrandomized trials to assess the beneficial effects of treatments and observational studies (including cohort and case control studies) for the assessment of harm. Exclusion criteria:  
1. Patients in need of guided bone regeneration or tissue regeneration. 2. Studies prior to 2013. 3. In vitro or sham treatment studies. 4. Patients with implants placed via the freehand technique. In this systematic review, several stages were carried out under a pre-established protocol. Initially, two reviewers ([PERSON] and [PERSON]) applied eligibility criteria for the selection of studies to be included in the review. Both authors independently examined the records identified during the initial search using Mendeley software (version 1.19.8). Subsequently, a third person (CAC) examined and verified the decisions made by the two reviewers, maintaining a blinded approach to avoid bias. In this phase, title and abstract analyses were performed, classifying articles as \"included\", \"excluded\", or \"uncertain\". The full texts of records classified as \"included\" or \"uncertain\" were subjected to a more detailed eligibility assessment. In situations where discrepancies arose in the selection of titles, abstracts, or full-text articles, the two principal investigators discussed the issue to reach a consensus.