ArticleClinical oral implants research2026
Accuracy and Efficiency of Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery Using Three Different Registration Methods-A Laboratory Study.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 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
introductionAccurate implant placement with Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS) is critical to ensure long-term success. Dynamic-CAIS systems enhance surgical precision through real-time feedback, though comparative data on their accuracy and efficiency remain limited. This study evaluated how different registration methods in d-CAIS systems influence implant placement accuracy and procedural time. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this laboratory study, three registration methods were assessed: ND group, XC group, and XM group. Five experienced operators placed 25 implants per group (75 total) in partially edentulous maxillary models. Postoperative CBCT scans were used to measure deviations at the implant entry point, apex, vertical depth, and angle. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test were used for statistical analysis.
resultsMean 3D deviations at the implant entry point were 1.06 mm (ND), 0.71 mm (XC), and 0.90 mm (XM); at the apex 1.23 mm, 0.83 mm, and 1.07 mm, respectively. Vertical depth deviations at the apex were similar across groups: 0.61 mm (ND), 0.59 mm (XC), and 0.64 mm (XM). Angular deviation was highest in the ND group (2.96°) compared to XC (1.17°) and XM (1.02°), with a significant difference between ND and XM (p = 0.028). The average procedural time was shortest in the XM group (7.20 ± 2.48 min), though differences were not statistically significant.
conclusionsAlthough registration methods minimally affect overall accuracy, system-specific factors may influence angular deviation. Future studies should prioritize clinical trials with larger sample sizes and explore the influence of operator experience and learning curves.
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.