ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Safety and accuracy assessment of static computer assisted localized piezoelectric alveolar decortication: an in vitro study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the safety and accuracy of static computer assisted corticotomy surgery (sCACS) in comparison with freehand piezocision. MATERIALS AND
methodsA randomized in vitro study was conducted. A total of 260 interradicular corticotomies were performed in 20 identical printed models. sCACS was performed in half of the models, while the rest underwent freehand localized decortication. Accuracy was measured in the three spatial axes by overlapping the digital planning with a previous cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan of the patient and a postoperative CBCT of the models. Safety was determined as the number of damaged root surfaces. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed.
resultsFreehand corticotomies increased the likelihood of iatrogenic root damage 2.21-fold (95%CI: 1.30 to 3.77; p = 0.004). Both groups showed some degree of deviation compared to digital planning. Nevertheless, the accuracy of sCACS was significantly greater in sagittal (B = -0.21 mm, 95%CI: -0.29 to -0.12; p < 0.001), axial (B = -0.32 mm, 95%CI: -0.48 to -0.18; p < 0.001) and angular deviation (B = -2.02º; 95%CI: -2.37 to -1.66; p < 0.001) compared to freehand surgery, with the exception of depth.
conclusionsThe precision and safety of sCACS are greater than the freehand technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Corticotomies are performed in crowded areas where there is usually space limitation. Clinicians should consider the systematic use of surgical guides, since minimal deviations can cause iatrogenic root damage in areas where malocclusions are present.
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.