ArticleBMC oral health2025
Integration of unilateral tooth mucosa-supported retentive surgical guide design in implant guided surgery: an in-vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
purposeThis study aimed to compare a retentive surgical guide design with a fixation pin design in unilateral mandibular distal extension cases and evaluate their resulting implant deviations. MATERIALS AND
methodsTen epoxy models with a soft tissue-simulating layer were used, each fitted with two surgical guide designs. The retentive guide featured clasp-like extensions, a 0.07 mm guide-to-tooth offset, and a 2.3 mm thickness. The fixation pin design had a 0.2 mm offset, a 3 mm thickness, and one fixation pin in the distal edentulous region. Eight directional forces were applied through the drill handle. The models were scanned before and after force application. Simulated implants were inserted into 180 scans, resulting in a total of 306 implants. Post-scan data were superimposed onto the initial plan to assess implant and guide deviation.
resultsThe baseline deviation was 0.34 ± 0.19 mm for the retentive design and 0.30 ± 0.14 mm for the fixation pin design (P = 1.00). Both designs produced simulated implant deviations within the recommended 2 mm safety margin. However, the retentive design showed significantly greater vertical implant deviation compared to the fixation design (0.99 ± 0.76 mm vs. 0.50 ± 0.34 mm, P < 0.001).
conclusionIncorporating retention features into surgical guides reduces simulated implant displacement in unilateral distal extension cases. However, the retentive guide exhibited larger implant deviations than the fixation design and required additional software adjustments, indicating a need for further refinement.
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.