ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2025
Assessing the precision of 3D-printed surgical templates in oral implant placement: a comparison of half and full-guided approaches.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital guided implantology improves safety and precision compared to freehand methods. A survey indicated that half-guided templates are more commonly used than full-guided ones in China. This study aims to assess the accuracy of implant placements using half-guided and full-guided digital surgical templates, considering factors like jaw location, tooth position, support type, implant timing, and bone density. Methods: 87 implants (52 half-guided, 35 full-guided) were evaluated by comparing pre- and postoperative CBCT scans to measure deviations in coronal, apical, depth, and angular positions. Bone density was also assessed in relation to the implant deviations. Results: The findings revealed that the half-guided group exhibited significantly greater deviations in several areas: maxillary angular deviations, anterior coronal and depth deviations, posterior depth deviations, tooth-supported guide depth deviations, immediate implant coronal and angular deviations, and delayed implant depth deviations ( Conclusion: Based on statistical results, power calculations, and subgroup effect sizes, the following clinical recommendations are derived: Half-guided templates, owing to their superior cost-effectiveness in fabrication time and cost, are recommended for use in mandibular posterior regions, mucosa-supported templates, delayed implantations, and clinical scenarios with uneven bone density distribution at implant sites. In contrast, full-guided templates are more suitable for maxillary implantations, anterior regions, tooth-supported templates, immediate implantations, and sites with homogeneous bone density distribution.
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.