Observational studyInternational journal of implant dentistry2026
Development of a preoperative accuracy prediction model using machine learning for implant placement in static-guided surgery: retrospective observational study.
Observational study in International journal of implant dentistry, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to develop a machine learning model capable of preoperatively predicting three-dimensional implant placement errors at the implant apex in static-guided surgery and to identify the clinical features associated with placement accuracy.
methodsClinical data partially derived from a previous observational study were analyzed. In total, 181 patients and 480 implants placed using fully static-guided surgery were included in this study. The outcome variable was defined as three-dimensional implant placement error at the implant apex relative to the preoperative simulation, dichotomized as less than 0.5 mm or ≥ 0.5 mm. Twenty-one clinical and radiographic factors previously suggested to influence the placement accuracy were used as explanatory variables. The feature importance was evaluated using three gradient boosting decision tree models. Furthermore, a stacking model combining multiple classifiers was constructed, and the classification performance was assessed using ten-fold cross-validation.
resultsThe feature importance analysis identified 12 features associated with implant placement errors. The stacking model demonstrated superior classification performance compared to individual classifiers. The true positive rate was 0.73, false negative rate was 0.27, false positive rate was 0.14, and true negative rate was 0.86.
conclusionsThe proposed stacking model correctly classified 86% of cases with implant placement error less than 0.5 mm and 73% of cases with implant placement error of ≥ 0.5 mm. These findings suggest that the proposed model may support the preoperative evaluation of implant placement accuracy in static-guided surgeries.
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.