ArticleBMC oral health2025
The success rate of infrazygomatic mini-implants placed with and without surgical guides: a historical control study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Analysis of Risk Factors Affecting Postoperative Success Rate and Postoperative Pain After Orthodontic Microimplant Nail Implantation and Improvement of Treatment Strategy.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 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
Abstract
backgroundTo improve the success rate of mini-implants, some surgical guides have been developed through digital technologies to achieve three-dimensional (3D) guided mini-implants insertion. However, there is no a surgical guide which can be applied for the insertion of infrazygomatic mini-implant. In this study, we introduced a two-trajectories surgical guide and investigated the success rate of infrazygomatic mini-implants under the guidance of the template.
methodsAn individualized surgical guide was fabricated based on the cone-beam computed tomography images, digital intraoral scanning images and the predesigned insertion plans. In the surgical guide group, 62 mini-implants were inserted between the maxillary first and second molars under the guidance of surgical guides (n = 62). In the historical control group, 54 mini-implants were placed by the direct manual method at the same site (n = 54). Then the mini-implant success rate in these two groups was compared.
resultsAfter implantation, 2 out of the 62 mini-implants fell off and a success rate of 96.8% was indicated in the surgical guide group. In the historical control group, 11 of 54 mini-implants fell off and the success rate was 79.6%. There was statistically significant difference between the success rate of two groups (P = 0.003).
conclusionsThe two-trajectories surgical guide is advantageous for the insertion of infrazygomatic mini-implant. Both the success rate and stability of infrazygomatic mini-implant were improved significantly with the use of the guide. But further studies with enlarged sample are needed to evaluate the accuracy and stability of the mini-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.