SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2021
Indications for 3-D diagnostics and navigation in dental implantology with the focus on radiation exposure: a systematic review.
Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Conventional Root Tip Resection with Digitally Guided Resection-An In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Ultrasonography-Guided Dental Implant Surgery: A Feasibility Study.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy of fully guided implant placement by undergraduate students and postgraduate dentists: a comparative prospective clinical study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024Observational
- The Accuracy of Zygomatic Implant Placement Assisted by Dynamic Computer-Aided Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- The "Dedicated" C.B.C.T. in Dentistry.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Accuracy of keyless vs drill-key implant systems for static computer-assisted implant surgery using two guide-hole designs compared to freehand implant placement: an in vitro study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2023Article
- Influence of experience on dental implant placement: an in vitro comparison of freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches.International journal of implant dentistry · 2022Article
- Accuracy of intraoral real-time navigation versus static, CAD/CAM-manufactured pilot drilling guides in dental implant surgery: an in vitro study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2022Article
- Learning Curve and Comparison of Dynamic Implant Placement Accuracy Using a Navigation System in Young Professionals.Dentistry journal · 2022Article
- Informational content of two-dimensional panoramic radiographs and lateral cephalometric radiographs with respect to the bone volume of intraoral donor regions considering CBCT imaging.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- Conventional free-hand, dynamic navigation and static guided implant surgery produce similar short-term patient-reported outcome measures and experiences.Evidence-based dentistry · 2021Article
- Dynamic Navigation in Dental Implantology.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)Review
- Cost-effectiveness of the Flapless Insertion of Zygomatic Implants Using Dynamic Navigation - A Retrospective Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDental implants are a common restorative method used to replace missing teeth. Implant placement techniques guided by three-dimensional imaging and navigation are becoming more widely available.
objectiveThe present review focused on the following questions: 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of 2-D versus 3-D imaging in dental implantology? 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of freehand implant placement in comparison with navigation-guided implant placement?
methodsA systematic review was performed, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The following libraries were searched for relevant literature: PubMed, Embase, Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF) Online, and the Cochrane Library. The risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SiGN) checklist. A total of 70 studies were included after screening, and the evidence from these was gathered for review.
resultsThree-dimensional imaging is advantageous in terms of image quality, and it provides a distortion-free evaluation of the implant site. However, it is also associated with higher costs and increased radiation exposure. Dynamic and static navigation are equal in accuracy and are both more accurate compared with the freehand method. No benefit in terms of implant survival could be demonstrated within the first 5 years for any specific method. DISCUSSION: A panoramic X-ray with a reference body often provides sufficient imaging and is the primary method for two-dimensional imaging. Cone beam computed tomography with low-dose protocol settings should be used if three-dimensional imaging is needed. Navigational support should be considered in the event of especially complex cases.
conclusionThe guidance technique used for implant placement should be decided on an individual basis. With the increasing availability of three-dimensional imaging, there should also be an increase in awareness of radiation exposure.
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.