ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Geometric Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Oral Implant Planning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Are dental magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography techniques reliable alternatives for treatment planning dental implants? A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of implant dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Magnetic resonance imaging in dental implant surgery: a systematic review.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating the Success of Immediate Implants in the Esthetic Zone: A Narrative Review with Case Illustration.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Assessment of the intrasinusidal volume before and after maxillary sinus augmentation using mri - a pilot study of eight patients.BMC oral health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the geometric reproducibility of three-dimensional (3D) implant planning based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Four raters used a backward-planning approach based on CBCT imaging and standard software to position 41 implants in 27 patients. Implant planning was repeated, and the first and second plans were analyzed for geometric differences regarding implant tip, entry-level, and axis. The procedure was then repeated for MRI data of the same patients. Thus, 656 implant plans were available for analysis of intra-rater reproducibility. For both imaging modalities, the second-round 3D implant plans were re-evaluated regarding inter-rater reproducibility. Differences between the modalities were analyzed using paired t-tests. Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility were higher for CBCT than for MRI. Regarding intra-rater deviations, mean values for MRI were 1.7 ± 1.1 mm/1.5 ± 1.1 mm/5.5 ± 4.2° at implant tip/entry-level/axis. For CBCT, corresponding values were 1.3 ± 0.8 mm/1 ± 0.6 mm/4.5 ± 3.1°. Inter-rater comparisons revealed mean values of 2.2 ± 1.3 mm/1.7 ± 1 mm/7.5 ± 4.9° for MRI, and 1.7 ± 1 mm/1.2 ± 0.7 mm/6 ± 3.7° for CBCT. CBCT-based implant planning was more reproducible than MRI. Nevertheless, more research is needed to increase planning reproducibility-for both modalities-thereby standardizing 3D implant planning.
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.