The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accuracy of Implant Placement with Computer-Guided Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Cadaver, Clinical, and In Vitro Studies
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the accuracy of implant placement using computer-guided surgery and to compare virtual treatment planning and outcome in relation to study type (in vitro, clinical, or cadaver). A further objective was to compare the accuracy of half-guided implant surgery with that of full-guided implant surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed search was performed to identify studies published between January 2005 and February 2015, searching the keywords "reliability AND dental implant planning" and "accuracy dental implant planning." Inclusion criteria were established a priori. Horizontal coronal deviation, horizontal apical deviation, angular deviation, and vertical deviation were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 186 articles were reviewed, and 34 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Information about 3,033 implants was analyzed in 8 in vitro studies (543 implants), 4 cadaver studies (246 implants), and 22 clinical studies (2,244 implants). Significantly less horizontal apical deviation and angular deviation were observed in in vitro studies compared to clinical and cadaver studies, but there were no statistically significant differences in apical coronal deviation or vertical deviation between the groups. Compared to half-guided surgery, full-guided implant surgery showed significantly less horizontal coronal deviation for cadaver studies, significantly less horizontal apical deviation for clinical studies, and significantly less angular deviation for both clinical and cadaver studies. CONCLUSION: Implant placement accuracy was lower in clinical and cadaver studies compared with in vitro studies, especially in terms of horizontal apical deviation and angular deviation. Full-guided implant surgery achieved greater accuracy than half-guided 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
Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information
Maes, F., Collignon, A., Vandermeulen, D., Marchal, G., & Suetens, P. (1997) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/42.563664 · Cited by 4,547
Buser, D., Martin, W. C., & Belser, U. C. (2004) · PubMed · Cited by 1,076
Computer Technology Applications in Surgical Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Review
Tahmaseb, A., Wismeijer, D., Coucke, W., & Derksen, W. (2014) · The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants · doi:10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.2 · Cited by 791
Esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placements
Evans, C. D. J., & Chen, S. T. (2008) · Clinical Oral Implants Research · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01413.x · Cited by 635
Chen, S., & Buser, D. (2014) · The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants · doi:10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g3.3 · Cited by 525
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
Lang, N. P., Pun, L., Lau, K. Y., Li, K. Y., & Wong, M. C. M. (2011) · Clinical Oral Implants Research · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02372.x · Cited by 449
Clinical and esthetic outcomes of implants placed in postextraction sites.
Chen, S. T., & Buser, D. (2009) · PubMed · Cited by 430
Accuracy of computer‐aided implant placement
Van Assche, N., Vercruyssen, M., Coucke, W., Teughels, W., Jacobs, R., & Quirynen, M. (2012) · Clinical Oral Implants Research · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02552.x · Cited by 328
Vercruyssen, M., Cox, C., Coucke, W., Naert, I., Jacobs, R., & Quirynen, M. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Periodontology · doi:10.1111/jcpe.12231 · Cited by 202
Cosyn, J., Hooghe, N., & De Bruyn, H. (2012) · Journal of Clinical Periodontology · doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.2012.01888.x · Cited by 186
Tolerance within the sleeve inserts of different surgical guides for guided implant surgery
Koop, R., Vercruyssen, M., Vermeulen, K., & Quirynen, M. (2012) · Clinical Oral Implants Research · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02436.x · Cited by 131
Accuracy assessment of computer‐assisted flapless implant placement in partial edentulism
Assche, N. V., van Steenberghe, D., Quirynen, M., & Jacobs, R. (2010) · Journal Of Clinical Periodontology · doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.2010.01535.x · Cited by 114
Vercruyssen, M., Coucke, W., Naert, I., Jacobs, R., Teughels, W., & Quirynen, M. (2014) · Clinical Oral Implants Research · doi:10.1111/clr.12460 · Cited by 92
Noharet, R., Pettersson, A., & Bourgeois, D. M. (2014) · Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry · doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.013 · Cited by 65
A clinically relevant validation method for implant placement after virtual planning
Verhamme, L. M., Meijer, G. J., Boumans, T., Schutyser, F., Bergé, S. J., & Maal, T. (2012) · Clinical Oral Implants Research · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02565.x · Cited by 53
Cited by
Digital dentistry: The new state of the art — Is it disruptive or destructive?
Rekow, E. D. (2020) · Dental Materials · doi:10.1016/j.dental.2019.08.103 · Cited by 284
Metadata
- Authors
- Bover-Ramos, F., Viña-Almunia, J., Cervera-Ballester, J., Peñarrocha-Diago, M., & García-Mira, B.
- Venue
- The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
- Publisher
- Quintessence Publishing
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 101-115
- ISSN
- 0882-2786 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2638125417
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 6.68
- 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
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.
