SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2025
Comparison of marker-based and marker-free registration techniques in dynamic navigation-guided implant surgery for fully and partially edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the accuracy of marker-based and marker-free registration methods in the context of dynamic navigation guided implant surgery for patients with partial or complete tooth loss. METHODOLOGY: The review includes research articles written in English and Mandarin Chinese published between January 2013 and May 2025, from databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Web of Science. Both laboratory-based and clinical investigations were taken into account. Thirteen studies, met the specified criteria for inclusion and underwent meta-analysis. Sub-analyses were performed to compare various registration modalities. The assessment of collective evidence was conducted using the GRADE system.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were observed between registration methodologies i.e; marker based and marker free. Subgroup analysis highlighted a preference for marker-based methods, specifically those utilizing U-shaped markers and bone markers, especially in the lower jaw. No notable variations were noted in terms of time efficiency. Marker-free registration was favored for outcomes reported by patients.
conclusionBoth marker-free and marker-based registration strategies are considered feasible options. Selection should be made based on factors such as practicality, cost, efficiency, clinician preference, and patient-reported outcomes. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the considerable variability among studies, underscoring the necessity for more consistent and dependable data. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024504573.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40467878What 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.