ReviewJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2025
Accuracy of Static and Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery During Dental Implant Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 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.
- Accuracy of palatal orthodontic miniscrew placement: Static vs dynamic computer-guided techniques in a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Dynamic navigation versus conventional 3D-printed guides in implant surgery: A randomised controlled trial.Bioinformation · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery during dental implant placement. Material and Methods: A literature search was performed for articles evaluating the accuracy of implant placement using static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in four electronic databases. Accuracy of implant placement was evaluated based on the platform, angular and apex deviations as the outcome measures. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) was used to evaluate the risk of bias (ROB) in the included articles. The fixed effect model was used for statistical analyses of the pooled data from the included studies. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADEpro GDT software. Results: Three RCTs were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The overall ROB was low in one study, and some concerns in two studies. The pooled data from the included trials have shown that the platform (MD, 0.12; CI, -0.04 to 0.27, Conclusion: The platform and angular deviations are higher in the D-CAIS, and the apex deviation is higher in the S-CAIS with no statistically significant difference. Graphical Abstract:
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.