ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2025
Accuracy of a dynamic guided surgery system for orthodontic miniscrew placement: an experimental in vitro study.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 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.
- Dynamic Computer-Assisted Surgery in Oral Surgery: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Simulated risk of root and neurovascular bundle damage during miniscrew insertion in the anterior palate without radiological data.Frontiers in dental medicine · 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
Objectives: To compare the accuracy and time required for orthodontic miniscrew placement using a dynamic computer-assisted surgery (d-CAS) system vs the conventional freehand (FH) approach. The effect of side, location, and operator experience was also evaluated. Materials and Methods: A randomized, in vitro experimental study was conducted using 10 maxillary resin models. After virtual planning, 40 miniscrews were randomly placed by one experienced and one novice operator. Twenty miniscrews were placed using a d-CAS system (test group) and 20 using the conventional FH method (control group). Preoperative and postoperative cone beam computed tomography scans were superimposed to measure deviations between the planned and final miniscrew position, and placement time was recorded. Results: The d-CAS group showed less deviation at the entry point (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.79 mm to 0.16 mm; P = .019) and less angle deviation (95% CI = 8.5° to 1.7°; P = .004). No significant differences were observed in other variables. Both operators achieved similar accuracy. Placement time was significantly longer in the d-CAS group, with a mean difference of 6.3 minutes (P < .001). Conclusions: Dynamic computer-assisted surgery improves the accuracy of orthodontic miniscrew placement vs the traditional FH method. However, d-CAS takes significantly longer. Clinician experience does not seem to significantly affect accuracy.
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.