ReviewAustralian dental journal2025
Static-Computer Assisted Implant Surgery: Where Are We Now?
Review in Australian dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The accuracy of robotic-assisted zygomatic implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Minimally Invasive Implant Rehabilitation in Geriatric Patients: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Contemporary Strategies to Avoid Extensive Bone Augmentation Procedures.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Robot-Assisted Dentistry: What the Evidence Supports and Which Outcomes Are Still Missing.Cureus · 2026Review
- Understanding the Workflows in Non-Guided and Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Review
- Article
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
backgroundStatic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (s-CAIS) has become a widely accepted standard in guided implant placement, leveraging advancements in digital technologies. Despite its widespread adoption, s-CAIS faces several limitations, and emerging alternatives like dynamic and robotic CAIS are gaining traction.
methodsThis narrative review synthesises the current literature on s-CAIS to provide a comprehensive overview of its current state, clinical applications, and future potentials. Key aspects included s-CAIS terminology and componentry, indications, clinical outcomes, patient-reported experience, educational implications, advantages, and limitations.
resultss-CAIS demonstrates superior accuracy compared to non-guided surgery. It can enhance efficiency in complex cases and facilitate minimally invasive and immediate loading protocols. However, limitations include restricted intraoperative flexibility, higher costs, and challenges in cases with limited access or unusual anatomy.
conclusionDespite emerging technologies such as dynamic navigation and robotic assistance, s-CAIS remains a predictable and widely used modality for guided implant placement. Clinicians should weigh its advantages against limitations and consider patient-specific factors when selecting guided surgery approaches. Further research should prioritise collective assessment of clinical and patient-reported outcomes over accuracy metrics alone.
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.