ArticleHead & face medicine2025
Influence of deviation tolerances on the positioning accuracy using computer aided dynamic navigation in endodontic surgery: a proof-of-concept.
Article in Head & face medicine, 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
backgroundThe operation accuracy of dynamic navigation is affected by deviation tolerance settings. This in vitro study was aimed to assess the influence of distance and angle deviation tolerances (DDT and ADT) on positioning accuracy in endodontic surgery using dynamic navigation. MATERIALS AND
methodsStandardized models were designed and three-dimensional (3D) printed. The drilling depth was 15 mm, where hemispherical cavities were reserved. According to the DDTs and ADTs, they were divided into five groups (n = 10), and the tolerances of distance/angle deviation were set at 0.3 mm/5°, 0.6 mm/3°, 0.6 mm/5°, 0.6 mm/7°, and 0.9 mm/5°. During navigation guidance, the operation was completed from the model surface to the cavity, the trajectory of the approach was fitted and compared with the design path, and the operational accuracy was calculated and analyzed using one-way ANOVA.
resultsWhen the ADT was 5°, the positioning two-dimensional (2D) distance deviation of the DDT 0.3 mm group and the 0.6 mm group were 0.52 ± 0.14 mm and 0.50 ± 0.07 mm, respectively, smaller than 0.73 ± 0.17 mm of the 0.9 mm group (P <.01). The positioning 3D distance deviation of the 0.3 mm group and the 0.6 mm group were 0.55 ± 0.15 mm and 0.53 ± 0.07 mm, respectively, smaller than 0.74 ± 0.17 mm of the 0.9 mm group (P <.01). When the DDT was set as 0.6 mm, the positioning angle deviation of the ADT 3° group and the 5° group were 2.21 ± 0.42° and 2.60 ± 0.59°, respectively, smaller than 4.72 ± 0.64° of the 7° group (P <.01).
conclusionA 0.6 mm DDT and 5° ADT can reduce the positioning deviation of dynamic navigation and obtain better operability. The deviation tolerance of 0.6 mm/5° is suggested for application of dynamic navigation in endodontic surgery. It might improve the operation efficiency and ensure positioning accuracy.
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.