Trial reportTechnology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine2022
Comparing digital and traditional guides in first molar implant surgery: A randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of the novel digital non-cross-arch surgical guides with integration of tooth undercut retention and screw-bone support for implant placement in mandibular free-end.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Digital implant placement accuracy: a clinical study on a fully-guided flapless single-unit immediate-loading protocol.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are few studies on the differences in clinical outcomes with implant guides made by different methods in cases with a single tooth loss and adjacent tooth supportOBJECTIVE: To compare the use of digital and traditional implant guides in patients whose first molars are absent and who are undergoing implant restoration.
methodsThis study included 42 patients with first molars missing who were randomly divided into two groups: the digital group (n= 21) and the control group (n= 21). A CAD/CAM digital implant guide was used in the digital group, whereas a traditional impression was used in the control group. Then, the labor time, the intraoral fit of the implant guide, and the deviation of the screw access channel position were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe impression time and implant surgery time in the digital group were less than in the traditional group. The intraoral first fit of the guide in the digital group was higher than in the control group (P< 0.05). The one-time satisfaction rate of the digital group was 100%, while five cases in the control group needed to be redone. In the digital group, there was no significant difference in the deviation of the screw access channel position between implants on the left and right sides. In the control group, the deviation of the screw access channel position on the right side was significantly lower than on the left side. Overall, the deviation of the screw access channel position was significantly lower in the digital group than in the control group.
conclusionsIn a first molar implant, the digital implant guide can effectively reduce the clinical operative time and the screw access deviation and improve efficiency. The clinical results with the digital guide provide a basis for its use in implant therapy for single missing teeth.
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.