ArticleBMC oral health2024
Digital registration versus cone-beam computed tomography for evaluating implant position: a prospective cohort study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Virtual bone-implant contact surface effect on implant stability in fresh extraction and healed sites: a pilot randomised clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Agreement and reproducibility of intraoral scan- versus CBCT-based three-dimensional implant position assessment in the posterior mandible - a paired in vitro method-comparison study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
- Automated artificial intelligence-driven 3-dimensional craniofacial superimposition for clinically useful treatment outcomes in growing patients: A multicenter study.American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2026Article
- Robot-Assisted Dentistry: What the Evidence Supports and Which Outcomes Are Still Missing.Cureus · 2026Review
- AI Prediction of Bone Graft Integration Success Using CBCT Datasets in Simulated Peri-Implant Defect.Maedica · 2026Article
- Accuracy of digital indirect bonding technology for customized orthodontic brackets based on personalized typodonts.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Application of a 3D Fusion Model to Evaluate the Efficacy of Clear Aligner Therapy in Malocclusion Patients: Prospective Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examination is considered a reliable method for clinicians to assess the positions of implants. Nevertheless, CBCT has drawbacks involving radiation exposure and high costs. Moreover, the image quality can be affected by artifacts. Recently, some literature has mentioned a digital registration method (DRM) as an alternative to CBCT for evaluating implant positions. The aim of this clinical study was to verify the accuracy of the DRM compared to CBCT scans in postoperative implant positioning. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 36 patients who received anterior maxillary implants were included in this clinical study, involving a total of 48 implants. The study included 24 patients in the single implant group and 12 patients in the dual implant group. The postoperative three-dimensional (3D) positions of implants were obtained using both CBCT and DRM. The DRM included three main steps. Firstly, the postoperative 3D data of the dentition and intraoral scan body (ISB) was obtained through the intraoral scan (IOS). Secondly, a virtual model named registration unit which comprised an implant replica and a matching ISB was created with the help of a lab scanner and reverse engineering software. Thirdly, by superimposing the registration unit and IOS data, the postoperative position of the implant was determined. The accuracy of DRM was evaluated by calculating the Root Mean Square (RMS) values after superimposing the implant positions obtained from DRM with those from postoperative CBCT. The accuracy of DRM was compared between the single implant group and the dual implant group using independent sample t-tests. The superimposition deviations of CBCT and IOS were also evaluated.
resultsThe overall mean RMS was 0.29 ± 0.05 mm. The mean RMS was 0.30 ± 0.03 mm in the single implant group and 0.29 ± 0.06 mm in the dual implant group, with no significant difference (p = 0.27). The overall registration accuracy of the IOS and CBCT data ranged from 0.14 ± 0.05 mm to 0.21 ± 0.08 mm.
conclusionIn comparison with the 3D implant positions obtained by CBCT, the implant positions located by the DRM showed clinically acceptable deviation ranges. This method can be used in single and dual implant treatments to assess the implant positions.
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.