ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of the digital static guide versus the freehand approach in endodontic microsurgery: 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
backgroundEndodontic microsurgery traditionally relies on the freehand approach. Recently, digital static guides have been introduced to improve surgical precision and safety. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of digital static guidance in preserving the mental foramen compared to the conventional freehand technique. Additionally, it assessed differences in the osteotomy size and the procedural time.
methodsForty-eight 3D-printed models with 3D-printed separate lower second premolars were subjected to optical scans and Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). These models were divided into three groups according to the location of the mental foramen: Group 1 (located below the apex of the second premolar) Group 2 (located between first and second premolars) Group 3 (located between second premolar and first molar). Each group was further subdivided into two subgroups utilizing surgical static guides and the freehand technique. Post-operative CBCT scans were compared with preoperative scans to measure the distance between the osteotomy and the mental foramen. Additionally, the osteotomy surface area and the duration of the procedures were compared between the two techniques. The paired sample test was used at (P ≤ 0.05).
resultsThe guided technique demonstrated significantly greater distance from the osteotomy to the mental foramen in all three groups. The osteotomy surface area, the osteotomy length and width were significantly reduced in the guided groups compared to the freehand groups across all anatomical positions. Additionally, the procedural time was significantly shorter in the guided approach for all groups.
conclusionThe variable positions of the mental foramen in relation to the premolar root do not affect the overall benefits provided by the static surgical guide compared to the freehand technique for efficient endodontic microsurgical procedures; reducing the surgical time and the osteotomy size leaving a wider bone margin around the mental foramen.
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.