ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2023
Reliability of a chairside CAD-CAM surgical guide for dental implant surgery on the anterior maxilla: An
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2023. 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.
- Defining the influence of digitalization on the future of dentistry through an educational handbook for Computer Aided Design tool training.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Clinical accuracy assessment of a dynamic navigation system and surgical guide using an oral appliance-secured patient tracker targeting anterior teeth.International journal of implant dentistry · 2025Observational
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
purposeThis study evaluated the reliability of the chair-side CAD-CAM surgical guide (CSG) in the anterior maxilla by comparing its accuracy with the laboratory 3D-printed surgical guide (3DSG) and manual surgical guide (MSG) concerning different levels of dentists' surgical experience. MATERIALS AND
methodsTen surgical guides of each type (MSG, 3DSG, and CSG) were fabricated on a control study model with missing right and left central incisors. Sixty implants were placed in 30 study models by two dentists (one inexperienced and one experienced) using three different types of surgical guides. Horizontal deviations at shoulder and at apex, vertical, and angular deviations were measured after superimposing the planned and placed implant positions in the software. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the accuracy of three types of surgical guides in each dentist group and the accuracy of each surgical guide between two dentists (α = .05).
resultsThere were no significant differences in any deviations between CSG and 3DSG, apart from angular deviation, for both dentists' groups. Moreover, both CSG and 3DSG showed no significant differences in accuracy between the two dentists (
conclusionCSG provides superior accuracy to MSG in implant placement in the maxillary anterior region and is comparable to 3DSG at different levels of surgical experience, while offering the benefits of shorter manufacturing time and reduced patient visits.
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.