Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38391641›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement with Dynamic Navigation-Investigation of the Influence of Two Different Optical Reference Systems: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Anne Knipper, Katharina Kuhn, Ralph G Luthardt, Sigmar Schnutenhaus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anne KnipperCenter for Dentistry, Dr. Schnutenhaus Community Health Center (CHC) GmbH, Breiter Wasmen 10, 78247 Hilzingen, Germany.
Katharina KuhnDepartment for Dentistry, Clinic for Prosthodontics, Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, 89081 Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6276-8061
Ralph G LuthardtDepartment for Dentistry, Clinic for Prosthodontics, Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, 89081 Ulm, Germany.
Sigmar SchnutenhausCenter for Dentistry, Dr. Schnutenhaus Community Health Center (CHC) GmbH, Breiter Wasmen 10, 78247 Hilzingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3593-7074

Funding

Institut Straumann, Peter Merian-Weg 12, 4002 Basel, Switzerland None
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This randomized prospective clinical study aims to analyze the differences between the computer-assisted planned implant position and the clinically realized implant position using dynamic navigation. In the randomized prospective clinical study, 30 patients were recruited, of whom 27 could receive an implant (BLT, Straumann Institut AG, Basel, Switzerland) using a dynamic computer-assisted approach. Patients with at least six teeth in their jaws to be implanted were included in the study. Digital planning was performed using cone beam tomography imaging, and the visualization of the actual situation was carried out using an intraoral scan. Two different workflows with differently prepared reference markers were performed with 15 patients per group. The actual clinically achieved implant position was recorded with scan bodies fixed to the implants and an intraoral scan. The deviations between the planned and realized implant positions were recorded using evaluation software. The clinical examinations revealed no significant differences between procedures A and B in the mesiodistal, buccolingual and apicocoronal directions. For the mean angular deviation, group B showed a significantly more accurate value of 2.7° (95% CI 1.6-3.9°) than group A, with a value of 6.3° (95% CI 4.0-8.7°). The mean 3D deviation at the implant shoulder was 2.35 mm for workflow A (95% CI 1.92-2.78 mm) and 1.62 mm for workflow B (95% CI 1.2-2.05 mm). Workflow B also showed significantly higher accuracy in this respect. Similar values were determined at the implant apex. The clinical examination shows that sufficiently accurate implant placement is possible with the dynamic navigation system used here. The use of different workflows sometimes resulted in significantly different accuracy results. The data of the present study are comparable with the published findings of other static and dynamic navigation procedures.

Indexed as

computer-aided designcomputer-aided manufacturingdental implants

Identifiers

PMID38391641
PMCPMC10886004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.