ArticleBMC medical education2024
Accuracy of full-guided versus half-guided implant procedures carried out with digital implant planning software by students as part of a university curriculum.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Accuracy of Static, Dynamic, and Robotic Guided Surgery in Immediate Implant Placement: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy of the surgical template used in the placement of implants and orthodontic miniscrews.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Computer-Aided Implant Surgical Guides: A Prospective In Vivo Study of the Impact of Template Design.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
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
backgroundThis in vitro study investigated whether full-guided (FG) or half-guided (HG) implant placement is more suitable for beginners and to what extent the use of the coDiagnostiX (CDX) (10.5, Straumann Group, Basel, Switzerland) implant planning software proves useful in teaching.
methodsTwenty students planned implant positions with CDX which were then placed in a model using printed drill templates in the sense of FG implantation (group 1) and HG implantation (group 2). The implant positions could be compared with those of the reference model, and deviations could be determined. The results were tested for significance using the t-test for independent samples for groups 1 and 2. A total of 32 students subsequently completed a questionnaire about the software. Cronbach's α was also calculated to check the reliability of the questions for the individual subject areas.
resultsIn both groups the greatest deviation occurred along the y-axis in the vestibular direction. It measured 1.390 mm in group 1 and 1.570 mm in group 2. Comparing both groups, there were significant deviations along the y-axis (p = .013), along the z-axis (p = .049), and in the total deviation (p = .031). The questionnaire was evaluated in design, with 95% positive answers. In contrast, the evaluation of the area of time and effort resulted in only 55% positive responses. Overall, experience with the software was rated as positive by 74%.
conclusionsGroup 1 achieved more accurate results, especially along the y-axis in the vestibular direction. In both groups, the implants were placed too deep. The questionnaire indicated a software with high usability and is therefore very suitable for teaching. If clinically feasible, beginners should prefer full-guided 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.