ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2026
Accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery among novice operators using three different patient registration methods: an in-vitro study.
Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate implant placement with computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) is critical to ensuring long-term success. Dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (d-CAIS) enhances surgical precision through real-time feedback; however, its accuracy and procedural efficiency when used by novice operators remain insufficiently investigated. This study evaluated how different registration methods in d-CAIS influence implant placement accuracy and procedural time when performed by novice operators. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this in vitro study, three registration methods were assessed (surface-based registration: ND, marker-based registration: XC, and pair-point registration: XM groups). Five novice operators, defined as dentists with less than five years of implant experience, placed 25 implants per group (75 total) in partially edentulous maxillary models. Postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were used to measure deviations at the implant entry point, apex, vertical depth, and angle. Statistical analyses were performed to compare group differences.
resultsMean three-dimensional deviations at the implant entry point were 0.97 mm (ND), 0.68 mm (XC), and 0.72 mm (XM); at the apex: 1.33 mm, 0.78 mm, and 0.90 mm, respectively. Vertical depth deviations at the apex were comparable across groups: 0.62 mm (ND), 0.51 mm (XC), and 0.54 mm (XM). Angular deviation was highest in the ND group (3.16°) compared to the XC (1.18°) and XM (0.97°) groups, with significant differences observed between ND and both XC and XM. Average procedural time was longest in the ND group and shortest in the XM group, with statistically significant differences between ND and the other two groups.
conclusionsIn novice operators, d-CAIS enabled stable control of implant entry point position and insertion depth regardless of the registration method used. In contrast, angular accuracy and procedural efficiency were influenced by registration strategies and system-related characteristics. These findings suggest that selection of appropriate registration methods may play an important role in optimizing accuracy and workflow efficiency during the early learning phase of d-CAIS.
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.