Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39835464›Full record

ArticleClinical oral implants research2025

Evaluation of the Accuracy, Surgical Time, and Learning Curve of Freehand, Static, and Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery in an In Vitro Study.

Joscha Gabriel Werny, Shengchi Fan, Leonardo Diaz, Bilal Al-Nawas, Keyvan Sagheb, Matthias Gielisch, Eik Schiegnitz

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Joscha Gabriel WernyDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Plastic Operations, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4935-5630
Shengchi FanDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Plastic Operations, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0231-7151
Leonardo DiazPostgraduate School, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.ORCID 0000-0002-4261-2000
Bilal Al-NawasDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Plastic Operations, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8665-5803
Keyvan SaghebDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Plastic Operations, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3866-5900
Matthias GielischDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Plastic Operations, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9229-8662
Eik SchiegnitzDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Plastic Operations, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1859-943X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis experimental study compared the accuracy of implant insertion using the free-hand (FH) technique, static computer-aided surgery (S-CAIS), or dynamic computer-assisted surgery (D-CAIS) and to evaluate the correlation of learning curves between surgeons' experience and surgical time. MATERIALS AND

methodsThirty-six models were randomly assigned to three groups (FH, n = 12; S-CAIS, n = 12; D-CAIS, n = 12). Each model was planned to receive four implants in the maxillary anterior and posterior regions. Twelve participants, six experienced surgeons, and six dental students were included in this study. The primary outcome was the deviation between the planned and final implant placement from each group. Secondary outcomes were each technique's learning curve regarding surgical time.

resultsThe average deviation at implant platform, apex and gradual deviation with FH technique were 1.31 ± 0.88 mm, 1.75 ± 0.9 mm and 6.67° ± 3.70°, respectively. The average deviation of implant platform, apex and angular in S-CAIS were 0.67 ± 0.32 mm, 1.00 ± 0.39 and 2.66° ± 1.77°, respectively. The average deviation of implant platform, apex and angular in D-CAIS were 1.14 ± 0.70 mm, 1.23 ± 0.58 and 3.20° ± 2.16°, respectively. Significant discrepancies at the implant platform, implant apex, and angular deviation were found between all surgical methods (p < 0.016). Learning curves were evident after multiple implant insertions using both freehand and S-CAIS.

conclusionThe findings indicate that computer-assisted implant insertion leads to a more precise implant alignment than implants inserted freehand in an experimental set-up.

Indexed as

Dental Implantation, EndosseousLearning CurveOperative TimeSurgery, Computer-AssistedClinical CompetenceHumansIn Vitro Techniquescomputer‐aided implant surgeryimplant accuracylearning curvesurgeon‐reported outcomesurgical time

Identifiers

PMID39835464
PMCPMC12066894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.