ArticleBMC oral health2025
Accuracy of the over-preparation technique in implant surgery in the maxillary anterior region: an in vitro 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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the maxillary anterior region, differences in bone density along the drilling path can impact the accuracy of implant placement despite the use of a surgical guide. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the accuracy of implant placement using the over-preparation technique in different drilling environments in the maxillary anterior region.
methodsThree experimental models (a, b, and c) were designed and fabricated to simulate the following drilling environments (n = 60 each): unhealed bone, less dense bone, and dense bone after tooth extraction. The models were subjected to implant cavity preparation and placement using the over-preparation technique (group OPT) and conventional surgical guide technique (group CGT). Differences between the actual positions and the planned positions of the implants were calculated.
resultsThe deviations of the implants in the group OPT in Model a and Model b were significantly smaller than those in the group CGT (P < 0.05). Among the group OPT, Model c presented with the smallest deviation, followed by Model b and Model a (P < 0.05), and the CGT group showed the same trend.
conclusionsIn the maxillary anterior region, differences in bone density along the drilling path can adversely affect the accuracy of implant placement. These discrepancies can be significantly minimized using the over-preparation technique.
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.