ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2025
Accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery across different degrees of edentulism: does experience matter? An in vitro study.
Article 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.
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.
- Application of fiber bragg grating sensing to thermal variation during dental implant site preparation: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery among novice operators using three different patient registration methods: an in-vitro study.International journal of implant dentistry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy of a dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (dCAIS) system utilized by two clinicians with differing levels of surgical experience in implant dentistry.
methodsA total of 72 conical dental implants were placed into 18 jaw models using a dCAIS system (Navident, ClaroNav, Toronto, Canada). Implant planning and placement were performed by both a novice and an experienced implantologist, following a standardized protocol across single-tooth gaps, shortened dental arches, and fully edentulous jaws. Pre- and postoperative CBCT scans were aligned, and deviations were analyzed at the coronal entry point (2D), apex (3D), apex vertically (V) and in angular deviation (°). Level of significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsMean deviations across all implants placed were: 1.25 ± 0.90 mm at entry point (2D), 1.66 ± 0.68 mm at apex (3D), 0.70 ± 0.51 mm at apex (V) and 4.96 ± 3.16° angular. No statistically significant differences were found between clinicians, jaws, or sides (p > 0.05). However, a significant correlation was observed regarding accuracy at entry points and angular deviations, indicating lower accuracy in fully edentulous jaws (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe investigated dCAIS system enabled accurate transfer of the planned to the actual (in vitro) implant position independent of operator experience. dCAIS systems may help mitigate the impact of limited surgical experience and contribute to more predictable outcomes. However, reduced anatomical reference points in edentulous jaws justify further clinical investigation and workflow optimization.
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.