ArticleJournal of dental sciences2024
Comparison of precision of implant placement between two different guided systems for static computer-assisted implant surgery: A simulation-based experimental study.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Static-Computer Assisted Implant Surgery: Where Are We Now?Australian dental journal · 2025Review
- Software system for implant positioning with guided surgery: AnBioinformation · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Many designs of static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) are available for clinician to achieve proper implant position. However, there were not any studies that approached the design alone to evaluate whether sleeve-in-sleeve or sleeve-on-drill design provided most accuracy implant position. The purpose of this study was to investigate the precision of implant placement with sleeve-in-sleeve and sleeve-on-drill static computer assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) designs. Materials and methods: Thirty-two models were fabricated simulating a patient with bilateral missing first premolar. Eight models (sixteen implants) were assigned in each group: Group A, B and C represented sleeve-in-sleeve design with 2, 4 and 6 mm sleeve height respectively. Group D represented integrated sleeve-on-drill design with 4 mm sleeve height. 3D deviation at implant platform, apex and angular deviation were measured. Data were analyzed using one way ANOVA ( Results: The overall deviation at platform ranged from 0.40 ± 0.14 mm (group A) to 0.73 ± 1.54 mm (group C), at apex from 0.46 ± 0.16 mm (group A) to 1.07 ± 0.37 mm (group C) and the angular deviation ranged from 0.86 ± 0.89° (group A) to 3.40 ± 1.29° (group C). Group A and B showed significantly less deviation than groups C and D ( Conclusion: Sleeve-in-sleeve sCAIS demonstrated higher precision than sleeve-on-drill sCAIS.
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.