Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36210395›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2022

Influence of experience on dental implant placement: an in vitro comparison of freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches.

Xiaotong Wang, Eman Shaheen, Sohaib Shujaat, Jan Meeus, Paul Legrand, Pierre Lahoud, Maurício do Nascimento Gerhardt, Constantinus Politis, Reinhilde Jacobs

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Xiaotong WangOMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Eman ShaheenOMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Sohaib ShujaatOMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Jan MeeusDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Paul LegrandOMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Pierre LahoudOMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Maurício do Nascimento GerhardtOMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Constantinus PolitisOMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Reinhilde JacobsOMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. reinhilde.jacobs@ki.se.ORCID 0000-0002-3461-0363

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to investigate the performance of novice versus experienced practitioners for placing dental implant using freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches.

methodsA total of 72 implants were placed in 36 simulation models. Three experienced and three novice practitioners were recruited for performing the osteotomy and implant insertion with freehand, surgical guide (pilot-drill guidance) and navigation (X-Guide, X-Nav technologies) approaches. Each practitioner inserted 4 implants per approach randomly with a 1-week gap to avoid memory bias (4 insertion sites × 3 approaches × 6 practitioners = 72 implants). The performance of practitioners was assessed by comparing actual implant deviation to the planned position, time required for implant placement and questionnaire-based self-confidence evaluation of practitioners on a scale of 1-30.

resultsThe navigation approach significantly improved angular deviation compared with freehand (P < 0.001) and surgical guide (P < 0.001) irrespective of the experience. Surgical time with navigation was significantly longer compared to the freehand approach (P < 0.001), where experienced practitioners performed significantly faster compared to novice practitioners (P < 0.001). Overall, self-confidence was higher in favor of novice practitioners with both guided approaches. In addition, the confidence of novice practitioners (median score = 26) was comparable to that of experienced practitioners (median score = 27) for placing implants with the navigation approach.

conclusionsDynamic navigation system could act as a viable tool for dental implant placement. Unlike freehand and static-guided approaches, novice practitioners showed comparable accuracy and self-confidence to that of experienced practitioners with the navigation approach.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsSurgery, Computer-AssistedDental Implantation, EndosseousOsteotomyDental ImplantsDental educationDental implantDynamic navigationSurgical guide

Identifiers

PMID36210395
PMCPMC9548458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.