Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Analysis of accuracy of four types of fully guided dental implant surgical guides: an in vivo study.
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 NCT06947057 (Classifying Fully Guided Surgical Guides), 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.
Classifying Fully Guided Surgical Guides: A Comprehensive Analysis of Accuracy
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
objectiveThis clinical trial was conducted to compare the four types of static fully guided surgical guides (bilateral tooth-supported guides, unilateral tooth-supported guides, mucosa-supported complete arch guides, and stackable bony-supported guides) in terms of accuracy.
aimTo compare all static guided protocols (bilateral tooth supported, unilateral tooth supported, full arch mucosa supported, stackable bone supported) with each other under homogenous conditions, accuracy is defined as the closeness of spatial agreement between any given implant as planned (reference) and as inserted (measurement), expressed by four spatial deviation parameters.
methodsAll patients in this investigation underwent a cone beam computer tomography with standard settings. Meanwhile, digital impressions were taken by an intraoral scanner. Implant planning software was used, considering a prosthetic-driven approach. Fully guided surgeries were executed. To evaluate the four groups of fully guided surgical guides, a digital imprint was obtained immediately after surgery. All STL files were imported into CAD software, and a digital library translated scan bodies to implant fixture replicas. For trueness tests, new STL files were loaded into an inspection program.
resultsA single experienced surgeon inserted 86 implants using four different types of fully guided surgical guides. For the angular deviation, the Kruskal-Wallis test showed that there was no significant difference (P=.117). In contrast, for the coronal global and apical global deviations, as well as the vertical discrepancies, there was a statistically significant difference between the four groups (P=.022), (P=.018), (P < .001), respectively. A Dunn-Bonferroni test was used to compare the groups in pairs to identify any significant differences.
conclusionsGiven the limitations of this study, the trueness of the four categories of fully guided surgical guides falls within an acceptable range. Nevertheless, when utilizing mucosa-supported and stackable guides, operators should consider inherent deviations and exercise heightened vigilance. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY DATE: 27. 04. 2025. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: NCT06947057.
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.