ArticleImaging science in dentistry2020
Positioning errors of dental implants and their associations with adjacent structures and anatomical variations: A CBCT-based study.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal monitoring of pulpal and periapical health of adjacent natural teeth during the implant healing period: a prospective cohort study.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
- Retrospective CBCT-based analysis of anatomical and demographic factors in implant planning for the maxillary first molar region.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Methodologies for Assessing the Dimensional Accuracy of Computer-Guided Static Implant Surgery in Clinical Settings: A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- A visualized AI-assisted framework for pre-surgical evaluation of implant pathways on periapical radiographs.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Management of Severely Reduced Interimplant Distance Using a Novel Eccentric Abutment: A 6-Year Case Report Featuring Digital Quantification of Implant Spacing.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Automated Implant Placement Pathway from Dental Panoramic Radiographs Using Deep Learning for Preliminary Clinical Assistance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prevalence of Dental Implant Positioning Errors: A Radiographic Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Incidental Findings Following Dental Implant Procedures in the Mandible: A New Post-Processing CBCT Software Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Prevalence of dental implant positioning errors: A cross-sectional study.Imaging science in dentistry · 2022Article
- Screw-and-cement-retained prosthesis versus cement-retained prosthesis: Which is more appropriate for the upper premolar area?Journal of dental sciences · 2022Article
- The occurrence of dental implant malpositioning and related factors: A cross-sectional cone-beam computed tomography survey.Imaging science in dentistry · 2021Article
- Long term clinical result of implant induced injury on the adjacent tooth.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence of dental implants positioning errors and their associations with adjacent structures and anatomical variations by means of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND
methodsCBCT images of 207 patients (584 dental implants) were evaluated by 2 oral radiologists. The distance between the implant and the adjacent teeth/implants was measured and classified as adequate (≥1.5 mm and ≥3 mm, respectively) or inadequate. The presence of thread exposure, cortical perforation, implant dehiscence, implant penetration into adjacent structures, and anatomical variations was also recorded. The incisor canal diameter and the depth of the concavity of the submandibular fossa were measured in order to evaluate their correlations with the frequency of implant penetration in these structures. Descriptive analyses, the Fisher exact test, and Spearman correlation analysis were performed (α=0.05).
resultsThe overall prevalence of positioning errors was 82.9%. The most common error was the inadequate distance between the implant and the adjacent teeth/implants. The presence of anatomical variations did not significantly influence the overall prevalence of errors (
conclusionThere was a high prevalence of dental implant positioning errors, and positioning errors were not associated with the presence of anatomical variations. Professionals should be aware of the space available for implant placement during the preoperative planning stage.
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.