ArticleBDJ open2025
Influence of two different printing methods on the accuracy of full-guided implant insertion - a laboratory study in undergraduate dental students.
Article in BDJ open, 2025. 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.
- Article
- The application of plotted surgical guides for pilot-guided and full-guided implant insertion- a prospective model study in a cohort of undergraduate dental students.International journal of implant 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of fully guided implant insertion in vitro achieved by two fabrication methods in a cohort of undergraduates. We hypothesized that both methods achieve a comparable accuracy.
methodsSurface scans and cone beam computed tomography images of 48 mandibular models were matched. For each model, two surgical guides enabling a fully guided implant insertion in the region of the first molar on the left or the right side were virtually designed. Fabrication by either Digital Light Processing (DLP) or Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) followed. Subsequently, 96 implants using the guides were inserted into the models by 48 undergraduate students. The accuracy of the implant insertion was assessed radiographically, followed by statistical analysis. Additionally, all participants completed a questionnaire.
resultsThe implants inserted using guides made by DLP showed a higher accuracy compared to guides made by FFF. The mean three-dimensional deviation was 1.94 ± 1.05 vs. 3.35 ± 2.03 degrees (p < 0.001). The evaluation of the questionnaires revealed mainly theoretical knowledge and a pronounced interest in implant dentistry. DISCUSSION: The main hypothesis has to be rejected as there were statistically significant differences in accuracy. However, it is possible to teach students the principles of guided implant dentistry and the digital workflow. Furthermore, the initial and running costs for the FFF workflow are substantially lower enabling a higher practicability for undergraduate education.
conclusionDespite the lower accuracy of the templates made from FFF the method seems to be suitable for laboratory hands-on courses for undergraduates.
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.