Trial reportScientific reports2026
Accuracy of dental implant positioning by dynamic or static computer-assisted implant surgery: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While virtual planning of implant placement is common, reliable clinical transfer remains critical. This randomized clinical trial compared transfer accuracy between a miniaturized dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery system (dCAIS; DENACAM) and static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS; BEGO). In 45 patients, 70 implants were placed (n = 35 per method). Deviations between planned and achieved positions were assessed by CBCT superimposition. Accuracy differences were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models (Type III F-tests; F, p-value, ICC) for 3D angular, 3D linear (implant base, tip), 2D mesio-distal, vestibulo-oral, and apico-coronal deviations. Ergonomic perception and covariate effects (age, sex, jaw, implant region, gap type) were analyzed using mixed-effects regression (β, 95% CI; α = 0.05). No significant accuracy differences were observed (p > 0.05). ICC values (0.00-0.56) indicated substantial patient-level variance. Mean 3D deviations (dynamic vs. static) were 4.89° ± 2.17 vs. 5.01° ± 2.13 (angular), 1.81 mm ± 0.69 vs. 1.55 mm ± 0.47 (base), 2.01 mm ± 0.72 vs. 1.78 mm ± 0.52 (tip). Ergonomic ratings were comparable. Covariate effects were limited to jaw (2D base deviation) and age (3D angular deviation) (p = 0.022, 0.015). This dCAIS may be equally suitable for implant plan transfer as sCAIS.
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.