ArticleClinical oral implants research2025
The Effect of Different Socket Morphologies of a Maxillary Central Incisor on the Accuracy of Immediate Implants Placed With Freehand or Guided Surgery-An In Vitro Study.
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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of Freehand, Static, and Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of periodontal research · 2026Pooled it
- Thread Depth Effects on Stability and Positional Accuracy in Guided Immediate Implants: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of socket morphology of a maxillary central incisor on accuracy of single implants placed with freehand or static guided surgery in simulated extraction sockets. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn anatomic central incisor was digitally designed and subtracted from the model to create socket morphology 1 (SM1), socket morphology 2 (SM2), and socket morphology 3 (SM3) simulating a central, retroclined, and proclined tooth. 90 implants were placed with freehand (FH); pilot guided (PG) and fully guided (FG) protocols in 30 models of SM1, SM2 and SM3 each. Implant accuracy was measured for vertical deviation (MVP), maximum horizontal deviation at implant platform (MHP) and apex (MHA), buccolingual (BLP, BLA), mesiodistal (MDP, MDA), and global angular deviation (GAD) deviations.
resultsThe effect of interaction between SM and protocol was significant only on MVP (p = 0.03) and GAD (p = 0.000). Individual effect of SM was significant for all variables except mesiodistal deviation. Significant difference was observed among all groups for MHA and BLP, between SM1 and SM2 for all variables except mesiodistal deviation, between SM2 and SM3 for MHP and SM1 and SM3 for BLA (p < 0.05). Implant accuracy was almost similar with FG or PG protocol (p > 0.05) except for MVP (FG vs. PG = 0.01). Buccolingual inaccuracies of implants were higher than mesiodistal deviations.
conclusionsVertical, horizontal, and angular deviations were highest in SM2 and least in group SM1. Within each socket, higher implant accuracy was observed with guided protocols than freehand placement. Results of this in vitro study should be interpreted with caution as the outcome may be different in real clinical settings.
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.