ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Evaluation of Accuracy of Adjacent Parallel Implant Placements Between Dynamic Navigation and Static Guide: A Prospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim The study aims to compare the accuracy of dynamic navigation (DN) and static guides (SGs) for simultaneous adjacent parallel placement of implants, the time taken for the surgery, and the ease of handling the instruments. Materials and methods This prospective trial was carried out at the Department of Implantology of Saveetha Dental College from October 2022 to February 2023. A total of 20 patients who needed simultaneous adjacent dental implants were allocated randomly into two groups: Group 1 SG surgery and Group 2 DN surgery. Forty implants were placed, 20 under DN and 20 under SG. Bucco-lingual displacement, apico-coronal displacement, mesiodistal displacement, and mesiodistal angulation were compared between the two groups. The patients' data in both groups were evaluated by operating surgeons along with the surgical time taken and the ease of handling of instruments. Results The 20 patients who underwent implant placement in the DN and SG groups all had adjacent missing teeth in posterior sites, including lower posteriors (70%) and upper posteriors (30%). There was improved precision in relation to the mesiodistal displacement and angulation of the anterior implant of the adjacent parallel implants. The mesiodistal displacement in Group 1 (SG) was 5.61 + 3.1 mm, which was higher than Group 2 (DN), which was 0.55 + 0.56 mm. The mesiodistal angulation was 3.1 + 2.9 degrees in Group 2 and 0.42 + 0.5 degrees in Group 1. The second implant had a significant difference (p < 0.005) in mesiodistal displacement, mesiodistal angulation, and bucco-lingual displacement. The difference between the intergroup surgical time (mean + SD) in Group 1 was 30 + 4.5 mins and in Group 2 was 60.7 + 10.1 mins, with p < 0.05 statistically significant. The comfort of the operator was better in the SG group. Conclusion Any digitally aided implant placement technique can improve placement accuracy but each has its downfalls. Achieving the highest levels of precision and long-lasting prosthetic results hinges on both the suitability of the chosen case and the expertise of the surgeon performing the implant placement.
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.