Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Trueness of fully guided versus partially guided implant placement in edentulous maxillary rehabilitation: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06542562 (Accuracy of Fully Guided Versus Half Guided Implant Placement in Patients With Edentulous Maxilla), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Accuracy of Fully Guided Versus Half Guided Implant Placement in Patients With Edentulous Maxilla: A Split-mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic Computer-Assisted Dental Implant Surgery Versus Free-Hand and Guided Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Pooled it
- Dental Implants in Patients with Functional Diversity Under a Strict Prevention Protocol: A Retrospective Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Methodologies for Assessing the Dimensional Accuracy of Computer-Guided Static Implant Surgery in Clinical Settings: A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
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
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the trueness of implant placement with fully guided (FG) implant placement protocol versus partial-guided (PG) protocol.
methodsThe study recruited 16 fully edentulous patients with adequate maxillary bone volume. Each patient received six implants; three were planned for each side of the maxilla to support a full-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis 3 (FP3). Patients were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups: Group 1 (PG group), drilling was done using a surgical guide, but implant placement was done without the guide. In group 2 (FG group), both drilling and implant placement were done through the surgical guide. The spatial relationship (entry, apex, and angle deviation) between planned and placed implants was evaluated using pre- and postoperative CBCT data.
resultsThe FG approach resulted in statistically significantly higher overall trueness in entry, apex, and angle deviation across multiple implant sites, with a statistically significant difference of 0.030, 0.013, and 0.036, respectively, though differences at individual implant sites were not consistently significant.
conclusionThis trial supported the fully guided implant placement protocol for enhancing the trueness of implant positioning in the rehabilitation of edentulous maxillary arches. Clinicians should weigh the benefits of this increased trueness against practical considerations.
trial registrationThe current study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06542562) on August 5, 2024.
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.