Narrative review regarding the applicability, accuracy, and clinical outcome of flapless implant surgery with or without computer guidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The advent of computer-guided surgery removed the need for complex surgical interventions such as extensive flap elevations, second stage implant exposure, and complications usually associated with conventional protocols. PURPOSE: (a) Analyze available literature reporting on applicability, accuracy, clinical outcome of flapless surgery with or without computer guidance. (b) Evaluate quality of studies, in terms of scientific level of evidence and ethical committee approval. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PUBMED search was performed in July 2018. A first search was based on a general search string limited to "Dental Implants" and "flapless surgery." A second search focused on accuracy of computer-guided surgery using search string "Surgery, Computer-Assisted" or "guided surgery," and "Dental implants." The following inclusion criteria were applied: (a) studies in English; (b) human studies (excluding cadaver); (c) systematic reviews; (d) systematic reviews with meta-analysis. Reviews not mentioning accuracy were excluded in search 2. RESULTS: Nine reviews included in total. Implant survival ranged between 89% and 100%. Early surgical and prosthetic complications reported in 9.1% to 36.4% of reviewed papers. Tooth-supported guides show more accuracy than bone or mucosa-supported guides. Fully guided surgery yields higher accuracy, with lower values for horizontal coronal, horizontal apical and angular deviation (1.00, 1.23, and 3.13°mm, respectively) than those placed with half guided surgery (1.44, 1.91, and 4.30 mm, respectively). Thirty-four of 71 human studies included in nine reviews, mentioned ethical committee approval or compliance with Declaration of Helsinki. CONCLUSIONS: Guided flapless surgery is comparable to free-hand surgery in terms of implant survival, marginal bone remodeling, and peri-implant variables. Clinicians advised to take care in all steps of the protocol, and include safety margins around virtually planned implants. Regarding compliance with research ethics, we should question whether scientific reports of clinical trials performed without an ethical umbrella are trustworthy. Compliance of ethics standards is imperative for submitted research papers.
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 | 0.007 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".