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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Cited by
Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use
Jacobs, R., Salmon, B., Codari, M., Hassan, B., & Bornstein, M. M. (2018) · BMC Oral Health · doi:10.1186/s12903-018-0523-5 · Cited by 521
Schneider, D., Marquardt, P., Zwahlen, M., & Jung, R. E. (2009) · Clinical Oral Implants Research · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01788.x · Cited by 477
Bover-Ramos, F., Viña-Almunia, J., Cervera-Ballester, J., Peñarrocha-Diago, M., & García-Mira, B. (2018) · The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants · doi:10.11607/jomi.5556 · Cited by 305
Vercruyssen, M., Cox, C., Naert, I., Jacobs, R., Teughels, W., & Quirynen, M. (2016) · Clinical Oral Implants Research · doi:10.1111/clr.12583 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Tahmaseb, A., Wismeijer, D., Coucke, W., & Derksen, W.
- Venue
- The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
- Publisher
- Quintessence Publishing
- 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.