Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of 3-Dimensional accuracy of guided implant placement using guided osteoperiosteal flap versus guided ridge splitting for atrophic maxillary augmentation (a 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 NCT07103577 (Guided Island Osteoperiosteal Flap Versus Ridge Splitting for Anterior Atrophic Maxillary Augmentation With Implant Placement), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Guided Island Osteoperiosteal Flap Versus Ridge Splitting for Anterior Atrophic Maxillary Augmentation With Implant Placement (a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplant placement in atrophic ridges presents a clinical challenge for surgeons and the results are often unpredictable. Static guided surgery is well-documented in cases where bone is adequate in height and width. However, its application with simultaneous augmentation procedures - such as ridge splitting or osteoperiosteal flap - remains underexplored. This study evaluated three-dimensional accuracy of static guided implant placement after guided ridge splitting or osteoperiosteal flap elevation, using a fully digital, dual-guide surgical protocol.
methodsA total of 18 patients requiring horizontal ridge augmentation received 40 dental implants using a dual-guide static protocol. The first surgical guide was used for piezoelectric ridge splitting or osteoperiosteal flap elevation; the second allowed fully guided implant placement. Surgical guides were designed via cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral scan superimposition using BlueSkyPlan
resultsAll 40 implants were successfully placed without complications. All implants achieved primary stability and had uneventful healing. Both approaches provided high placement accuracy comparable with values reported in the literature. Comparison between ridge splitting and osteoperiosteal flap techniques revealed no statistically significant differences across coronal, apical, and angular deviation parameters. The osteoperiosteal flap group showed numerically smaller deviations, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
conclusionsA fully digital dual-guide static protocol enables accurate implant placement in augmented ridges using guided ridge splitting or osteoperiosteal flap techniques. This digital workflow may serve as a reliable alternative to conventional grafting methods in anatomically compromised sites.
trial registrationThis Randomized Clinical Trial has been retrospectively registered at Clinical Trials.gov with identification number: NCT07103577 on 2025-07-29.
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.