ArticleBioinformation2026
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate implant osteotomy positioning in the anterior maxilla remains a clinical challenge because the precision of different surgical guide fabrication methods has not been fully established. Therefore, it is of interest to compare the accuracy of osteotomy preparation using conventional vacuum-formed, desktop 3D-printed and industrially milled surgical guides in standardized anterior maxillary resin models. Thirty identical maxillary resin models with simulated central incisor edentulous sites were allocated into three groups (n=10 each) and osteotomy deviations from a single virtual implant plan were assessed using post-operative CBCT superimposition software for coronal, apical, angular and depth discrepancies. Industrially milled guides showed the lowest mean deviation at both the coronal (0.38 ± 0.14 mm) and apical (0.52 ± 0.18 mm) levels, followed by 3D-printed guides (0.54 ± 0.19 mm and 0.78 ± 0.22 mm), whereas conventional guides showed the greatest deviation. Digitally fabricated guides, particularly industrially milled guides, provided significantly greater osteotomy accuracy than conventional vacuum-formed guides in anterior maxillary implant placement.
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.