ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2024
Reconstruction of dental roots for implant planning purposes: a retrospective computational and radiographic assessment of single-implant cases.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D reconstruction of the target tooth occlusal surface from a single-view image for root canal surgical navigation.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- CBCT-based virtual surgical planning for predicting risk factors and preventive strategies of buccal plate perforation in maxillary premolar implant placement.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to assess the deviation between clinical implant axes (CIA) determined by a surgeon during preoperative planning and reconstructed tooth axes (RTA) of missing teeth which were automatically computed by a previously introduced anatomical SSM.
methodsFor this purpose all available planning datasets of single-implant cases of our clinic, which were planned with coDiagnostix Version 9.9 between 2018 and 2021, were collected for retrospective investigation. Informed consent was obtained. First, the intraoral scans of implant patients were annotated and subsequently analyzed using the SSM. The RTA, computed by the SSM, was then projected into the preoperative planning dataset. The amount and direction of spatial deviation between RTA and CIA were then measured.
resultsThirty-five patients were implemented. The mean distance between the occlusal entry point of anterior and posterior implants and the RTA was 0.99 mm ± 0.78 mm and 1.19 mm ± 0.55, respectively. The mean angular deviation between the CIA of anterior and posterior implants and the RTA was 12.4° ± 3.85° and 5.27° ± 2.97° respectively. The deviations in anterior implant cases were systematic and could be corrected by computing a modified RTA (mRTA) with decreased deviations (0.99 mm ± 0.84 and 4.62° ± 1.95°). The safety distances of implants set along the (m)RTA to neighboring teeth were maintained in 30 of 35 cases.
conclusionThe RTA estimated by the SSM revealed to be a viable implant axis for most of the posterior implant cases. As there are natural differences between the anatomical tooth axis and a desirable implant axis, modifications were necessary to correct the deviations which occurred in anterior implant cases. However, the presented approach is not applicable for clinical use and always requires manual optimization by the planning surgeon.
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.