ArticleBioinformation2026
The accuracy of dental implant placement with different computer-assisted implant surgery techniques.
Article in Bioinformation, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite technological advances, achieving ideal three-dimensional precision in dental implant placement remains challenging, with deviations potentially affecting prosthetic outcomes and peri-implant health. Therefore, it is of interest to evaluate the accuracy of static computer-guided, dynamic computer-guided and conventional freehand implant placement techniques. Hence, a total of 120 implants were placed in 96 patients, with at least 40 implants per group and postoperative CBCT images were compared with preoperative plans to measure positional deviations. Both computer-guided approaches demonstrated significantly higher placement accuracy than the freehand method (p < 0.05). Dynamic navigation achieved the best accuracy with minimal coronal (0.71 ± 0.34 mm) and angular (2.18 ± 1.12°C) deviations, indicating its slight advantage in clinical predictability over static guidance.
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.