Trial reportTechnology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine2023
The clinical effect of the digital guide in the early implant restoration of second molars.
Trial report in Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundIn the absence of contraindications to implants, implant repair is the preferred method to treat mandibular second molar loss.
objectiveTo compare the clinical effects of a traditional implant guide and digital implant guide in the early implant restoration of second molars.
methodsThe study included 35 patients with second molar loss randomly divided into two groups. Eighteen patients in the experimental group had an implant procedure using a computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) digital implant guide, and 17 patients in the control group had the procedure using a traditional film pressing implantation guide. Then, the surgical procedure was completed using the two different implant guides. At 3 months after surgery, four parameters including screw hole exit position, coronal deviation of the implant site, disease improvement rate, and clinical effects, which included marginal adaptation, anatomic form, marginal discoloration, postoperative sensitivity, surface roughness, and secondary caries of the upper prosthesis were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe screw hole exit position in the experimental group was directed to the functional cusp of the opposite jaw, and there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of disease improvement and the clinical effect of the upper prosthesis between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the bilateral coronal deviation and deviation direction of implants in the two groups. The bilateral coronal deviation of the experimental group was smaller than that of the control group.
conclusionThe digital implant guide can effectively reduce the deviation of the screw hole and the upper prosthesis in the restoration of the second molar. The prosthesis used in the experimental group had a good clinical outcome, which provides a theoretical basis for the restoration of the posterior molar.
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.