Accuracy of newly developed sleeve‐designed templates for insertion of dental implants: A prospective multicenters clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The insertion of dental implants by means of computer-assisted template-based surgery is an established method. PURPOSE: To investigate the accuracy of a newly developed sleeve-designed template and to evaluate differences between maxillary and mandibular implants as well as anterior versus posterior area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Any partially edentulous patients requiring at least one implant to be planned on three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography scan, according to a computer-assisted template-based protocol, were consecutively enrolled at two centers. Any potential implant position was considered eligible for the present trial. Outcome measures were: implant failure, complications, and accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients with 119 implants were evaluated. No patients dropped out during the study period (mean follow-up 12.4 ± 7.1 months). Three implants failed at centre two, whereas, one complication was experienced at centre one (limited access in posterior area). Differences were not statistically significant (P > .05). The mean deviations were 0.53 ± 0.46 mm (range 0.05-3.38 mm; 95% CI 0.32-0.48 mm) in the horizontal plan (mesio-distal); 0.42 ± 0.37 mm (range 0.0-1.53 mm; 95% CI 0.26-0.40 mm) in the vertical plan (apico-coronal); and 1.43 ± 1.98° (range 0.03-11.8°; 95% CI 0.31-1.01°) in angle. Differences between centers were compared using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test (P > .05). More accurate results were found for anterior implants in both horizontal plan and angle. CONCLUSION: This study showed good precision in all the parameters measured. The results were thus in a range equal to or better than the mean precision found in numerous clinical trials described in the literature. Posterior implants were less accurate because of the use of open sleeves template.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".