ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Impact of clinician experience on the accuracy of static guided implant placement in post-extraction sockets: a cadaver study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
objectivesTo evaluate the accuracy of s-CAIS in immediate post-extraction sockets using a cadaver model and to assess whether operator experience influences implant placement precision and surgical time.
methodsTwenty teeth (incisors: 9; premolars: 8; molars: 3) were extracted from two fresh defrozen cadaver heads, and implants were planned using a digital workflow integrating cone beam computed tomography and intraoral scanning. Custom-made tooth-supported surgical guides were fabricated and used by two operators: one expert (> 5 years of experience) and one non-expert (< 5 years of experience), both without prior guided surgery experience. Twenty implants were placed. Post-operative scans were taken and superimposed to the pre-operative plans to measure global head deviation, global tip deviation, and angular deviation. Data were stratified by operator experience, jaw location, and implant position.
resultsNo significant differences were found between expert and non-expert operators in head deviation (1.26 ± 0.51 mm vs. 1.54 ± 0.63 mm, p = 0.29), tip deviation (1.70 ± 0.50 mm vs. 1.81 ± 0.53 mm, p = 0.64), angular deviation (3.83 ± 1.90° vs. 3.32 ± 1.69°, p = 0.54), or surgical time (3.60 ± 1.45 min vs. 4.31 ± 2.67 min, p = 0.84). Anterior implants showed significantly greater head (1.69 ± 0.57 mm vs. 1.13 ± 0.46 mm, p = 0.03) and tip deviations (1.99 ± 0.41 mm vs. 1.54 ± 0.50 mm, p = 0.04) compared to posterior implants. Mandibular implants required longer surgical time than maxillary implants (4.90 ± 2.37 min vs. 2.87 ± 1.01 min, p = 0.03).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this cadaver study, s-CAIS demonstrated predictable accuracy for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets, with operator experience not significantly influencing placement precision or surgical time. Static guided surgery may standardize outcomes and support surgical training in implant dentistry. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of s-CAIS in a cadaver model demonstrated predictable accuracy for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets irrespective of operator experience. Its use might be considered for clinical training sessions.
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.