Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Accuracy of Zygomatic Implant Placement Using Completely Versus Partially Guided.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06227351 (Accuracy of Completely Versus Partially Limiting Computer Guided Zygomatic Implant Placement. a Randomized Controlled Study), which is not on this 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.
Accuracy of Completely Versus Partially Limiting Computer Guided Zygomatic Implant Placement. a Randomized Controlled Study
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveZygomatic implant placement is a challenging surgical procedure, as the implants are inserted with limited accessibility and visibility. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of completely limiting versus partially limiting computer-generated 3D surgical guides for zygomatic implant placement in patients with atrophic maxillae. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective randomized controlled study included participants with atrophic posterior maxilla indicated for zygomatic implant (ZI) placement. The participants were randomly allocated to one of two groups. Group I received ZI using completely limiting 3D computer-guided surgical templates, while Group II underwent ZI placement using partially limiting 3D computer-guided surgical templates. The primary outcome variable was the accuracy of implant placement, which was assessed by measuring linear deviations at the implant coronal and apical points, as well as angular deviations. The secondary outcome was the duration of the operative time.
resultsThis study evaluated 12 zygomatic implants (6 per group) in 6 patients (mean age: 56.9 ± 7.57 years). Baseline demographics and clinical features were well-balanced between groups, with comparable age and sex distributions. There were no statistically significant differences in linear or angular deviations between the groups, except for a statistically significant greater apical deviation in the midsagittal plane for Group II (p = 0.015). Group II had a significantly shorter mean operative time (21.17 ± 2.14 min) than Group I (27 ± 2.37 min) (p = 0.01). No dropouts or postoperative complications (e.g., infection, peri-implantitis, or sinus-related issues) have occurred.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of the sample size of this study, the partially limiting surgical guide could provide a successful and less invasive treatment modality for zygomatic implant placement, as it significantly reduces the surgical time with comparable overall accuracy. However, the completely limiting guide demonstrates superior control at the critical apical implant position.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.org (NCT06227351) 2024-02-05.
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.