SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2025
Are dental magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography techniques reliable alternatives for treatment planning dental implants? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 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.
- The Associations Between Digital Exclusion and Physical or Cognitive Function in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR aging · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic Applications of Ultrasound Imaging in Dental Implantology: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
backgroundThe rising global demand for dental implant highlights the necessity for precise imaging techniques that minimise patient risk of radiation exposure. While the cone -beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) remains the gold standard, its ionizing radiation exposure raises safety concerns. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the accuracy of non-ionizing alternatives, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Ultrasonography (US), in dental implantology.
methodsDatabases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane) were searched for studies (2014-2024) using predefined PICO criteria. Risk of bias was assessed via QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis employed fixed/random-effects models to synthesize quantitative data on geometric deviations and soft-tissue accuracy.
resultsTwelve studies were included in this study. While MRI generally exhibited greater deviation in implant tip placement at 0.3 mm (95% CI -0.08, 0.68), its overall accuracy remained comparable to CBCT. MRI showed a higher mean deviation at the implant entry level of 0.38 mm (95% CI 0.04, 0.71) and for implant angulation with a mean difference of 0.81 degree (95% CI -0.50, 2.12), indicating less precision under specific conditions. Conversely, Ultrasonography demonstrated superior performance in soft tissue accuracy with a smaller deviation compared to CBCT, at just 0.04 mm (95% CI -0.04, 0.13).
conclusionMRI and ultrasonography offer reliable non-ionizing alternatives for dental implant planning, with MRI matching CBCT in hard-tissue accuracy and ultrasonography excelling in soft tissue assessment. Further standardisation of protocols is needed to address variability in clinical workflows. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: The Clinical Trial Number is not applicable in this systematic review. This study was prospectively registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) online with the identification number CRD42024610741.
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.