ArticleImaging science in dentistry2022
Prevalence of dental implant positioning errors: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Big Nose Pattern at the Second Upper Molar-A Retrospective CBCT Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Management of Severely Reduced Interimplant Distance Using a Novel Eccentric Abutment: A 6-Year Case Report Featuring Digital Quantification of Implant Spacing.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Prevalence of Dental Implant Positioning Errors: A Radiographic Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the prevalence of dental implant positioning errors and the most frequently affected oral regions. Materials and Methods: A sample was obtained of CBCT images of 590 dental implants from 230 individuals who underwent diagnosis at a radiology center using cone-beam computed tomography from 2017 to 2020. The following variables were considered: thread exposure, violation of the minimum distance between 2 adjacent implants and between the implant and tooth, and implant contact with anatomical structures. Descriptive data analysis and the Pearson chi-square test ( Results: Most (74.4%) of the 590 implants were poorly positioned, with the posterior region of the maxilla being the region most frequently affected by errors. Among the variables analyzed, the most prevalent was thread exposure (54.7%), followed by implant contact with anatomical structures, violation of the recommended distance between 2 implants and violation of the recommended distance between the implant and teeth. Thread exposure was significantly associated with the anterior region of the mandible ( Conclusion: Many implants were poorly positioned in the posterior region of the maxilla. Thread exposure was particularly frequent and was significantly associated with the anterior region of the mandible.
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.