Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 791

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Computer Technology Applications in Surgical Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Review

Tahmaseb, Ali, Wismeijer, Daniel, Coucke, Wim, Derksen, Wiebe·2014·The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the literature on the accuracy and clinical performance of static computer-assisted implant surgery in implant dentistry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic and manual literature searches were applied to collect information about (1) the accuracy and (2) clinical performance of static computer-assisted implant systems. Meta-regression analysis was performed to summarize the accuracy studies. Failure/complication rates were investigated using a generalized linear mixed model for binary outcomes and a logit link to model implant failure rate. RESULTS: From 2,359 articles, 14 survival and 24 accuracy studies were included in this systematic review. Nine different static image guidance systems were involved. The meta-analysis of the accuracy (24 clinical and preclinical studies) revealed a total mean error of 1.12 mm (maximum of 4.5 mm) at the entry point measured in 1,530 implants and 1.39 mm at the apex (maximum of 7.1 mm) measured in 1,465 implants. For the 14 included survival studies (total of 1,941 implants) using static computer-assisted implant dentistry, the mean failure rate was 2.7% (0% to 10%) after an observation period of at least 12 months. In 36.4% of the treated cases, intraoperative or prosthetic complications were reported, which included: template fractures during the surgery, change of plan because of factors such as limited primary implant stability, need for additional grafting procedures, prosthetic screw loosening, prosthetic misfit, and prosthesis fracture. CONCLUSION: Different levels of quantity and quality of evidence were available for static computer-assisted implant placement, with tight-fitting high implant survival rates after only 12 months of observation in different indications achieving a variable level of accuracy. Future long-term clinical data are necessary to identify clinical indications; detect accuracy; assess risk; and justify additional radiation doses, effort, and costs associated with computer-assisted implant surgery.

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 · 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.2

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 791

Metadata

Authors
Tahmaseb, A., Wismeijer, D., Coucke, W., & Derksen, W.
Venue
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Published
2014-01
Volume
29
Issue
Supplement
Pages
25-42
ISSN
  • 0882-2786 (ISSN-L)
  • 1942-4434
OpenAlex
W2162810082
Cited by
791
References
1
FWCI
41.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Computer Technology Applications in Surgical Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.2
The paper
Tahmaseb, A., Wismeijer, D., Coucke, W., & Derksen, W. (2014). Computer Technology Applications in Surgical Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Review. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.2

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.