Comparison the accuracy of implant position among mental, static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in totally edentulous patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of placed implants using three different CAIS systems in totally edentulous patients Materials and Methods: Totally edentulous patients requiring implants for full-mouth restoration were eligible for this study. All implants (n=60) were classified into three groups of CAIS systems equally. In mental and static CAIS groups, coDiagnostiXTM software (Dental Wings Inc, Canada) was selected for implant planning. All virtual images were used to facilitate the surgeon placing implant by conventional manner in mental CAIS group, and fabricate the surgical template for guided implant surgery in static CAIS group. On the other hand, the Iris–100 software (EPED Inc., Taiwan) was chosen for virtually planning of implant position, and navigating the implant bed preparation and insertion intraoperatively in dynamic CAIS group. Post-operative DICOM files were imported to each planning software in order to evaluate the angular deviations, 3D deviations at implant platform and apex between placed and planned implant positions. Statistical data analysis was tested by One-way ANOVA. Results: Groups of 20 Implants were installed following three different CAIS protocols. The mean angular deviations among mental, static and dynamic CAIS groups were 10.09°±4.64°, 4.98°±2.16° and 5.75°±2.09° respectively. The mean 3D deviations at implant platform among mental, static and dynamic CAIS groups 3.48±2.00 mm, 1.40±0.72 mm and 1.73±0.43 mm respectively. While, the mean 3D deviations at implant apex were 3.6±2.11 mm, 1.66±0.61 mm and 1.86±0.82 mm. The static and dynamic CAIS groups showed no statistically significant difference in term of implant accuracy and both groups also demonstrated statistically significant superior accuracy in all variables compared to the mental CAIS group in totally edentulous patient. Conclusion: In this clinical trial, the mental CAIS group reported the least accuracy and there was no difference between static and dynamic CAIS groups in the totally edentulous.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".