Evaluation of surgical placement accuracy of customized <scp>CAD</scp>/<scp>CAM</scp> titanium mesh using screws‐position‐guided template: A retrospective comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Customized computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing (CAD/CAM) titanium meshes have been adopted for alveolar bone augmentation. But the inaccuracies between planned and created bone volume/contour are quite common, and the surgical placement of the customized mesh was considered as the first critical factor. However, the evaluation of surgical placement accuracy of customized mesh is currently lacking. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the surgical placement of customized meshes. METHODS: A total of 30 cases, 20 without the screws-position-guided template and 10 with the screws-position-guided template, were included in this study. The cone beam CT (CBCT) data sets of pre- and postoperative were converted into 3D models and digitally aligned. Then the actual placement of customized mesh and retainer titanium screws was compared to the virtual one to assess the surgical placement accuracy of customized mesh. At least 6 months after surgery, a new CBCT was taken and converted into 3D models. Planned bone volume, created bone volume, vertical bone augmentation, healing complications rate, pseudo-periosteum rate, exposure rate, and infection rate were all evaluated. RESULTS: The 3D digital reconstruction/registration analysis showed that the average difference between actual placement and planned one of customized mesh in positive and negative directions was 2.69 ± 0.70 mm and -1.41 ± 0.90 mm, respectively, without the screws-position-guided template. And the mean difference values between the actual and planned placement of the screws on the X and Y axes were 0.74 ± 0.85 mm and 0.89 ± 0.84 mm. In contrast, with the screws-position-guided template, the results were 2.38 ± 0.69 mm and -1.30 ± 1.13 mm. Accordingly, the mean difference values of screws were 0.76 ± 0.84 mm and 0.94 ± 0.72 mm. There was no statistical difference between the two groups, and the noninferiority of the control group compared to the test group was also confirmed by the comparative analysis. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that there is a certain deviation between the planned surgical placement and actual one of customized mesh, and using screws-position-guided template is of limited help for its accurate placement. Further research is needed to achieve precise surgical placement of the customized mesh to achieve precise alveolar bone augmentation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".