ArticleJournal of dental sciences2026
Retrospective accuracy comparison of marker-based and marker-free registrations using dynamic implant navigation.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background/purpose: The choice between marker-based and marker-free registration in dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (d-CAIS) presents a trade-off between potential accuracy and workflow efficiency. This study sought to directly compare these two methods by assessing their impact on implant placement precision and overall surgical time, to inform clinical decision-making. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted involving 48 implants placed using d-CAIS, divided into two groups: marker-based and marker-free. Implant placement accuracy was assessed by comparing actual and planned positions using pre- and post-operative cone beam computed tomography scans. Angular and linear deviations at the implant platform and apex were recorded, along with preparation and registration times. Results: The marker-based group exhibited significantly lower linear deviation compared to the marker-free group, particularly at both the platform and apex. However, the two methods showed no significant difference in angular deviation. The marker-free registration method demonstrated a shorter preparation time but a slightly longer registration time, with no significant difference in overall implant positioning accuracy. The marker-free group showed higher linear deviation, particularly in horizontal measurements at the implant platform and apex. Conclusion: This study highlights that marker-based registration offers superior precision, especially in linear deviation, during dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery. In contrast, the marker-free approach provides greater efficiency in preparation time, despite requiring slightly longer registration times. By eliminating the need for additional hardware, the marker-free method presents a viable alternative in specific clinical situations. These findings contribute valuable insights into optimizing surgical workflows and enhancing clinical outcomes in implant dentistry.
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.