ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2025
A Comparative Study on the Accuracy of Implant Placement Using 3D-Printed and Milled Guides Without Metal Sleeves.
Article in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 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
- A Comparative Study on the Accuracy of Implant Placement Using 3D-Printed and Milled Guides Without Metal Sleeves.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe present study aims to evaluate whether differences in accuracy of the implant positions exist for static computer-aided implant placement based on the manufacturing process of surgical guides and the inclusion or not of metal sleeves.
methodsSeventy-two implants (6 per model) were placed in 12 models simulating a partially edentulous maxilla using 12 dentally supported surgical guides anchored with 2 anchor pins. The surgical guides were divided into three groups: additive manufactured with a metal sleeve (Group PS), additive manufactured without a metal sleeve (Group PNS), and subtractive manufactured without a metal sleeve (Group MNS). The internal drilling diameter was standardized for all groups (4.85 mm). Deviations between the planned virtual implant positions and the scanned postoperative models were assessed in three parameters: 3D deviations at the crest, 3D deviations at the apex, and angular deviations in the implant insertion axis. The Shapiro-Wilk test was applied to analyze the normality of the sample distribution. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to analyze the deviations among the groups (α = 0.05).
resultsStatistical differences were reported among the groups in the parameters: 3D deviations at the crest, 3D deviations at the apex, and angular deviations in the implant insertion axis (p < 0.05). At the crest, the smallest 3D deviation was recorded in the MNS group (0.498 ± 0.337 mm) followed by the PNS group (0.660 ± 0.572 mm) and the PS group (1.028 ± 0.424 mm) (p < 0.05). At the apex, as well, the lowest deviation was observed in the MNS group (0.810 ± 0.544 mm) followed by the PNS group (0.840 ± 0.620) and the PS group (1.360 ± 0.990 mm) (p < 0.05). Regarding angular deviations, the best results were obtained by the PNS group (1.44° ± 1.57°) with statistically significant differences with both the MNS group (2.90° ± 2.35°) and the PS group (3.88° ± 2.85°) (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe accuracy of the implant position was affected by the inclusion or absence of metal sleeves and the manufacturing method. Overall, non-sleeved guides deliver better accuracy by reducing crestal and apical deviations, as well as angular errors. Differences between the groups without metal sleeves, 3D printed and milled, were found in the implant angulation, where the 3D printed group obtained more accurate results.
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.