Accuracy of Virtually Planned and Template Guided Implant Surgery on Edentate Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Scientific evidence regarding the accuracy of implants placed into patients by the aid of a surgical template is limited. The objective of the present study was to verify if any variation exists between virtually planned implants' position using a computer, compared with the subsequently clinically placed implants with the aid of a surgical template in the mandible and the maxilla. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total number of 25 edentate jaws were treated with the aid of a surgical template. In total, 139 implants were inserted. Fifty implants were inserted in the mandible and 89 in the maxilla. A voxel-based registration method was used to match two separate cone-beam computed tomography scans of the patients. The implant positions were calculated and compared between the planned implants and the implants' clinical position after more than 1 year after surgery. The results included the linear differences in distance at the level of the hex, the apex, and the depth. The angular differences were presented in degrees. RESULTS: Statistical results indicated some factors with significant deviations. The greatest errors were found when comparing between patients moving during the computed tomography scans and those that did not move. The results showed significant divergence at the level of the hex and apex of the implants. CONCLUSION: The hypothesis was rejected, as the statistical results indicated that there were significant differences between virtually planned implants' position and the final position of implants placed clinically.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".