ArticleScientific reports2025
An in vitro accuracy study on scan body-assisted surface based registration for conventional and zygomatic dental implants.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
There are various techniques to measure accuracy of dental implant surgery, but limited data validating the techniques used to analyze accuracy. Scan-body-assisted surface-based registration (SB-SBR) is deemed theoretically accurate, but with challenges in testing accuracy. The purpose of the study was to analyze the accuracy of SB-SBR for conventional (CVI) and zygomatic implants (ZI) using 2 complementary techniques. An in-vitro study was designed using a 3D-printed model of an edentulous maxilla with CVI and ZI digitally planned and placed. SB-SBR was performed on the physical model and on a model-free virtual setting, and the implant position was compared with those of the planned implants 10 times. Outcome variables were angular and linear errors (AE and LE), with thresholds of 1° and 1 mm. Paired t-test and Wilcoxson signed-ranked test were used. Results showed greater AE for ZI versus CVI (mean difference, MD 0.42°). Apical LE was greater for ZI (MD 0.68 mm), while CVI exhibited greater platform LE (MD 0.69 mm). Overall AE remained under 1°, but the apical LE of ZI exceeded 1 mm, which could potentially lead to violation of critical structures when combined with surgical error, highlighting the need for caution when interpreting data derived from SB-SBR especially for ZI.
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.