Conventional Multi‐Slice Computed Tomography (CT) and Cone‐Beam CT (CBCT) for Computer‐Aided Implant Placement. Part II: Reliability of Mucosa‐Supported Stereolithographic Guides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Deviations of implants that were placed by conventional computed tomography (CT)- or cone beam CT (CBCT)-derived mucosa-supported stereolithographic (SLA) surgical guides were analyzed in this study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven patients were randomly scanned by a multi-slice CT (CT group) or a CBCT scanner (CBCT group). A total of 108 implants were planned on the software and placed using SLA guides. A new CT or CBCT scan was obtained and merged with the planning data to identify the deviations between the planned and placed implants. Results were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U test and multiple regressions (p < .05). RESULTS: Mean angular and linear deviations in the CT group were 3.30° (SD 0.36), and 0.75 (SD 0.32) and 0.80 mm (SD 0.35) at the implant shoulder and tip, respectively. In the CBCT group, mean angular and linear deviations were 3.47° (SD 0.37), and 0.81 (SD 0.32) and 0.87 mm (SD 0.32) at the implant shoulder and tip, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected between the CT and CBCT groups (p = .169 and p = .551, p = .113 for angular and linear deviations, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement via CT- or CBCT-derived mucosa-supported SLA guides yielded similar deviation values. Results should be confirmed on alternative CBCT scanners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".