ArticleBioinformation2025
Dynamic navigation versus conventional 3D-printed guides in implant surgery: A randomised controlled trial.
Article in Bioinformation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trueness of implant placement, safety and surgeon experience with dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery : a prospective multi-centre cohort study.International journal of implant dentistry · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate implant positioning is essential for ensuring long-term prosthetic success and peri-implant health. Therefore, it is of interest to compare the precision, surgical efficiency and short-term clinical outcomes between dynamic navigation (DN) and static 3D-printed guides (SG) in single-tooth implant placement. Fifty patients were randomly assigned to either the DN (n=25) or SG (n=25) group and parameters such as coronal, apical and angular deviations, surgical time, implant stability (ISQ) and patient satisfaction were assessed. DN demonstrated significantly higher accuracy (coronal deviation 0.90±0.30 mm vs 1.40±0.40 mm; p<0.001) and reduced surgical time (18±4 min vs 22±5 min; p=0.002) compared with SG, while early implant stability and complication rates were similar between groups. Thus, we show that dynamic navigation enhances implant placement accuracy and efficiency without compromising short-term clinical outcomes, supporting its clinical advantage over conventional static guides.
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.