Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 477

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer‐guided template‐based implant dentistry

Open access
Schneider, David, Marquardt, Pascal, Zwahlen, Marcel, Jung, Ronald E.·2009·Clinical Oral Implants Research

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the dental literature regarding accuracy and clinical application in computer‐guided template‐based implant dentistry. Materials and methods: An electronic literature search complemented by manual searching was performed to gather data on accuracy and surgical, biological and prosthetic complications in connection with computer‐guided implant treatment. For the assessment of accuracy meta‐regression analysis was performed. Complication rates are descriptively summarized. Results: From 3120 titles after the literature search, eight articles met the inclusion criteria regarding accuracy and 10 regarding the clinical performance. Meta‐regression analysis revealed a mean deviation at the entry point of 1.07 mm (95% CI: 0.76–1.22 mm) and at the apex of 1.63 mm (95% CI: 1.26–2 mm). No significant differences between the studies were found regarding method of template production or template support and stabilization. Early surgical complications occurred in 9.1%, early prosthetic complications in 18.8% and late prosthetic complications in 12% of the cases. Implant survival rates of 91–100% after an observation time of 12–60 months are reported in six clinical studies with 537 implants mainly restored immediately after flapless implantation procedures. Conclusion: Computer‐guided template‐based implant placement showed high implant survival rates ranging from 91% to 100%. However, a considerable number of technique‐related perioperative complications were observed. Preclinical and clinical studies indicated a reasonable mean accuracy with relatively high maximum deviations. Future research should be directed to increase the number of clinical studies with longer observation periods and to improve the systems in terms of perioperative handling, accuracy and prosthetic complications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01788.x

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 477

Metadata

Authors
Schneider, D., Marquardt, P., Zwahlen, M., & Jung, R. E.
Venue
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-07-24
Volume
20
Issue
s4
Pages
73-86
ISSN
  • 0905-7161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0501
OpenAlex
W2131330209
Cited by
477
References
14
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A systematic review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer‐guided template‐based implant dentistry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01788.x
The paper
Schneider, D., Marquardt, P., Zwahlen, M., & Jung, R. E. (2009). A systematic review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer‐guided template‐based implant dentistry. Clinical Oral Implants Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01788.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.