Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42049831›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2026

Clinical transfer accuracy of pressure-moulded versus 3D-printed drilling guides for orthodontic mini-implants in the anterior palate: a randomized prospective clinical study.

Stephan Christian Möhlhenrich, Inas Ayad, Felix Linnerz, Tong Xi, Shankeeth Vinayahalingam, Stefaan Bergé, Gholamreza Danesh, Sachin Chhatwani

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Stephan Christian MöhlhenrichDepartment of Dentistry, Section of Orthodontics, Dentofacial Orthopedics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Medical Centre, THK 309, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands. stephan.moehlhenrich@radboudumc.nl.
Inas AyadDepartment of Orthodontics, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausen Str. 45, 58455, Witten, Germany.
Felix LinnerzDepartment of Orthodontics, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausen Str. 45, 58455, Witten, Germany.
Tong XiDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, 590, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Shankeeth VinayahalingamDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, 590, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Stefaan BergéDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, 590, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Gholamreza DaneshDepartment of Orthodontics, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausen Str. 45, 58455, Witten, Germany.
Sachin ChhatwaniDepartment of Orthodontics, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausen Str. 45, 58455, Witten, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precise placement of orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) in the anterior palate, particularly in the median and paramedian regions, is essential for reliable skeletal anchorage. Digitally planned insertion guides may improve transfer accuracy, but clinical data comparing different fabrication workflows remain limited. This randomised clinical trial evaluated the transfer accuracy of pressure-moulded (PM) and three-dimensionally printed (3DP) insertion guides for palatal mini-implant placement in these regions. Thirty patients requiring palatal skeletal anchorage were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either PM or 3DP insertion guides. Two OMIs were placed per patient, either in the median or paramedian region of the anterior palate. Planned and achieved implant positions were compared after insertion using three-dimensional superimposition. The primary outcome was three-dimensional angular deviation of the implant axis. Secondary outcomes included linear deviations at the implant shoulder and tip and angular deviations. Between-group comparisons were performed using independent-samples t-tests on patient-level averages. No intraoperative complications or missing data occurred. Overall, mean three-dimensional angular deviation was significantly lower for PM than for 3DP guides (3.61 ± 1.29° vs. 5.77 ± 2.45°, p = 0.006). Linear deviations were comparable between groups at the implant shoulder and higher at the implant tip, with no statistically significant differences (shoulder: PM 0.81 ± 0.27 mm vs. 3DP 0.84 ± 0.34 mm, p = 0.778; tip: PM 1.25 ± 0.40 mm vs. 3DP 1.49 ± 0.58 mm, p = 0.199). Both guide types achieved high clinical transfer accuracy; however, PM guides showed lower angular deviations, particularly for paramedian placement. Overall, differences between fabrication workflows were statistically significant but mainly affected angular precision and remained within clinically acceptable ranges.Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register (File Number DRKS 00028967, registered on May 04, 2022).

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsOrthodontic Anchorage ProceduresPalatePrinting, Three-DimensionalAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesYoung AdultDental ImplantsGuided implant placementOrthodontic anchorage proceduresOrthodontic appliancesOrthodonticsPalateTemporary anchorage devices

Identifiers

PMID42049831
PMCPMC13125631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.