ArticleFrontiers in oral health2025
Comparison of the accuracy of guided implant surgery between two implant-planning software: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Prosthetically Coupled Tripod Fixation Concept for Edentulous Surgical Guides: A Three-Case Proof-of-Concept Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Implant placement accuracy using computer-guided surgical templates supported by bone and mucosa: an in vitro study.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the difference of a single posterior implant of the same length between planned and actual positions for two commonly used static implant planning software packages following a tooth-supported partially guided surgery protocol. Materials and methods: There are 75 implant placement cases were included in this retrospective study. 40 were designed using the GuideMia Implant System, and 35 were designed using 3Shape Implant Studio. The implant position on the postoperative cone-beam computed tomography was superimposed on the planned implant position. Coronal, apical, and angular deviations in the 3D direction were measured for each group using an additional evaluation software program. Six risk factors that may influence the accuracy were evaluated separately: jaw, location, implant system, missing teeth at the free end, and implant length and diameter. Linear regression models were established to analyze the source of deviation. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between the two implant planning software programs no matter the implant length is 8 mm, 10 mm, or 12 mm ( Conclusions: The implant planning programs showed similar results regarding the implant position accuracy of the same length. However, an implant located at the free end of a single missing posterior tooth has a significant influence on the accuracy.
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.