ArticleBMC oral health2022
Digital versus radiographic accuracy evaluation of guided implant surgery: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06819995 (Accuracy of Static Guided Implant Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 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.
Accuracy of Static Guided Implant Surgery: 3D-printed vs Milled Surgical Guides, a Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of accuracy of four types of fully guided dental implant surgical guides: an in vivo study.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Effect of guided implant placement learning experiences on freehand skills: A pilot study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2024Trial
- Agreement and reproducibility of intraoral scan- versus CBCT-based three-dimensional implant position assessment in the posterior mandible - a paired in vitro method-comparison study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
- Clinical Applicability of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Implant Planning and Surgical Guide Design in the Maxillary Esthetic Zone: A Registry-Based Cohort Study.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
- AI Prediction of Bone Graft Integration Success Using CBCT Datasets in Simulated Peri-Implant Defect.Maedica · 2026Article
- Comparison Of Transfer Accuracy Among Hexed Implant Mounts, Clips Impression Copings, And Open-Tray Impression Copings at Different Implant Angulations: An In Vitro Study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Does relative bracket base area affect the accuracy of reconstructed buccal surface in the virtual bracket removal technique?BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Accuracy of Implant Guided Surgery in Fully Edentulous Patients: Prediction vs. Actual Outcome-Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Accuracy evaluation of dental CBCT and scanned model registration method based on pulp horn mapping surface: an in vitro proof-of-concept.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Digital registration versus cone-beam computed tomography for evaluating implant position: a prospective cohort study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Accuracy assessment of implant placement with versus without a CAD/CAM surgical guide by novices versus specialists via the digital registration method: an in vitro randomized crossover study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is the most widely used method for postsurgical evaluation of the accuracy of guided implant surgery. However, the disadvantages of CBCT include radiation exposure, artifacts caused by metal implants, and high cost. Few studies have introduced a digital registration method to replace CBCT for evaluating the accuracy of guided surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare digital registration to conventional CBCT in terms of the capacity to evaluate the implant positioning accuracy of guided surgery. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis in vitro study included 40 acrylic resin models with posterior single mandibular tooth loss. Guided surgery software was used to determine the optimal implant position; 40 tooth-supported fully guided drilling templates were designed and milled accordingly. After the guided surgery, the accuracies of the surgical templates were evaluated by conventional CBCT and digital registration. For evaluation by conventional CBCT, postsurgical CBCT scans of the resin models were performed. The CBCT data were reconstructed and superimposed on the implant planning data. For digital registration, we constructed a virtual registration unit that consisted of an implant replica and a scan body. Next, we obtained postsurgical optical scans of resin models with the scan body. The postsurgical implant position was identified by superimposition of the registration unit and optical scan data. The implant planning data and postsurgical implant position data were superimposed; deviations were reported in terms of distance for implant entry/apex point and in terms of angle for the implant axis. Interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots were used to analyze the agreement between the two evaluation methods.
resultsThe ICCs between the two methods were 0.986, 0.993, and 0.968 for the entry point, apex point, and angle, respectively; all were significantly greater than 0.75 (p < 0.001). Bland-Altman plots showed that the 95% limits of agreement of the differences were - 0.144 to + 0.081 mm, - 0.135 to + 0.147 mm, and - 0.451° to + 0.729° for the entry point, apex point, and angle, respectively; all values were within the maximum tolerated difference.
conclusionConventional CBCT and digital registration showed good agreement in terms of evaluating the accuracy of implant positioning using tooth-supported surgical templates.
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.