Trial reportScientific reports2025
Accuracy of guided insertion of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices comparing two different 3D printed surgical guide designs: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bone-Screw-Force Interactions in Palatal Orthodontic Mini-Implants: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework for Primary Stability and Biomechanically Driven Site Selection.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Success Rate of Immediately Loaded Orthodontic Temporary Anchorage Devices: A Retrospective Analysis of Patient- and Treatment-Related Factors.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Shear bond strength of laser-sintered orthodontic appliances bonded to enamel using various bonding protocols: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Milled surgical guides vs. freehand placement of orthodontic implants: a preclinical micro-CT study.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Assessing the relationship between mini-screw implant shape and primary stability: An experimental study in orthodontics.Journal of orthodontic science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Temporary anchorage devices (TADs) provide maximum anchorage in orthodontic therapy. Surgical guides can be used to accurately achieve pre-planned TAD positions. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of guided TAD insertion in the anterior palate, comparing two 3D printed surgical guide designs. Patients were randomized in two groups. TADs were inserted using either a surgical guide with a skeletonized design or full arch design. The primary outcome was translational and rotational deviations from the virtually planned TAD positions. Secondary outcomes included the dependence of deviations on age and gender and TAD success rate after a follow-up period of three months. In total 40 patients were included in this RCT and 80 TADs were inserted. During the follow-up period, no TAD loss was observed. The skeletonized design showed significantly higher deviations between the planned TAD position and the actual TAD position in all, but two spatial dimensions (translational and rotational) compared to the full arch design. The right TAD showed higher deviations compared to the left TAD for the skeletonized design. The full arch design showed significantly higher accuracy compared to the skeletonized design. During virtual planning of TAD positions, a safety distance should be considered to account for possible deviations using 3D printed surgical guides for TAD insertion in the anterior palate.
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.