ArticleBMC oral health2019
A novel guided surgery system with a sleeveless open frame structure: a retrospective clinical study on 38 partially edentulous patients with 1 year of follow-up.
Article in BMC oral health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Two Implant Placement Techniques in Sinus Region (Bone Graft versus Computer-Aided Implant Surgery): A Randomized Prospective Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Trial
- A novel sleeveless guided system for reducing thermal injury in endodontic microsurgery with enhanced accuracy and efficiency.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Beyond Accuracy: Clinical Outcomes of Computer Assisted Implant Surgery.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Review
- Guided Endodontic Technique in Mandibular Incisors with Pulp Canal Obliteration: A Case Report.Iranian endodontic journal · 2025Article
- Management of Calcified Canals with a New Type of Endodontic Static Guide: A Case Report.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Verification of the accuracy of dynamic navigation for conventional and mouthpiece methods: in vivo study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Management of a solitary bone cyst using a custom-made surgical guide for a minimally invasive approach: technical note and case report.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Minimally Invasive Treatment of Lateral Incisors with Guided One-Piece or Two-Piece Titanium-Made Narrow Diameter Implants: A Retrospective Comparative Study with Up to Two Years Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Can computer-assisted implant surgery improve clinical outcomes and reduce the frequency and intensity of complications in implant dentistry? A critical review.Periodontology 2000 · 2022Review
- Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- The Modern and Digital Transformation of Oral Health Care: A Mini Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Repeatability of Freehand Implantations Supported with Universal Plastic Sleeves-In Vitro Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Artificial intelligence in fixed implant prosthodontics: a retrospective study of 106 implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns inserted in the posterior jaws of 90 patients.BMC oral health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis retrospective clinical study aims to present results of experience with a novel guided surgery system with a sleeveless, open-frame structure, in which the surgical handpiece (not the drills used for preparation) is guided.
methodsThis study was based on an evaluation of the records of partially edentulous patients who had been treated with a sleeveless open-frame guided surgery system (TWIN-Guide®, 2Ingis, Brussels, Belgium), between January 2015 and December 2017. Inclusion criteria were patients with good systemic/oral health and a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Exclusion criteria were patients who had been treated without a guide, or with a guide with sleeves, patients with systemic/oral diseases and who did not have a follow-up of 1 year. The main outcomes were surgical (fit and stability of the surgical guide, duration of the intervention, implant stability, and any intra-operative or immediate post-operative complication), biologic, and prosthetic.
resultsThirty-eight patients (24 males, 14 females; mean age 56.5 ± 14.0 years) were included in the study. These patients had been treated with 110 implants inserted by means of 40 sleeveless, open-frame guides. With regard to fit and stability, 34 guides were excellent, 4 acceptable, and 2 inadequate for use. The mean duration of the intervention was 23.7 (± 6.7) minutes. Immediately after placement, 2 fixtures were not stable and had to be removed. Two patients experienced pain/swelling after surgery. The 108 surviving implants were restored with 36 single crowns and 32 fixed partial prostheses (24 two-unit and 8 three-unit bridges); these restorations survived until the 1-year follow-up, with a low incidence of biologic and prosthetic complications.
conclusionsWithin the limits of this study, this novel guided surgery system with sleeveless, open frame-structure guides seems to be clinically reliable; further studies on a larger sample of patients are needed to confirm these outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.