ArticleBMC oral health2024
A modified protocol merging two published techniques for computer guided zygomatic implants surgery: a technical note.
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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of the surgical template used in the placement of implants and orthodontic miniscrews.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Accuracy of Zygomatic Implant Placement Using Completely Versus Partially Guided.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesZygomatic implant surgery can be difficult due to the limited intraoperative visibility of the surgical field and the complex anatomy of the zygomatic bone, which could lead to serious complications. This study aims to assess the accuracy of zygomatic implants placement using computer-guided surgical templates. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 13 zygomatic implants were placed in four participants. Double-sleeve drill guides were used with the help of computer-guided surgical templates designed with a lateral window. The accuracy was evaluated by measuring the linear deviations regarding the implants' platforms and apices' positions in addition to the angular deviations. Moreover, deviations of both implants from three fixed planes of space were measured.
resultsThe mean linear deviation at platforms was 2.44 mm ± 1.57 and at the apices 2.32 mm ± 1 while the mean angular deviation was 3.6˚ ± 1.92. Differences at the entry points were 0.43 ± 1.79 mm, 0.39 ± 1.12 mm, and - 0.54 ± 2.00 mm from the mid-sagittal, horizontal, and coronal planes respectively. Differences at the exit points were - 0.75 ± 1.25 mm, -0.06 ± 1.09 mm, and 0.63 ± 1.24 mm from the same planes respectively. Within all planes, there was no statistically significant difference.
conclusionGiven the limitations of this study, the use of the computer-guided surgical templates augmented by the double sleeve drill guides allowed favorable control over the tip of the long surgical drill away from vital structures during the zygomatic implant osteotomy. It also allowed control over alveolar crest osteotomy and its placement in a favorable prosthetic position. Overall, this protocol should be considered for further research and improvement to allow more predictable surgical outcomes while preventing the occurrence of complications. Before conducting this study, the protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethical Committee of Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University in meeting no. (105), on 15th of July 2020 with the application no.: (FDASU-RecD072029).
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.