MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401715657 · doi:10.1111/cid.13375

Comparative analysis of dental implant placement accuracy: Semi‐active robotic versus free‐hand techniques: A randomized controlled clinical trial

2024· article· en· W4401715657 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fan Yang, Jianping Chen, Ruijue Cao, Qingwei Tang, Haiyan Liu, Yuchen Zheng, Beilei Liu, Min Huang, Zhenshi Wang, Yude Ding, Linhong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMajor Scientific and Technological Project of Zhejiang Province
KeywordsDental implantDentistryRandomized controlled trialImplantMedicineMedical physicsOrthodonticsBiomedical engineeringSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted implant surgery has emerged as a novel digital technology, and the accuracy need further assessment. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of single dental implant placement between a novel semi-active robot-assisted implant surgery (RAIS) method and the conventional free-hand implant surgery (FHIS) method through a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients requiring single dental implant placement were recruited and randomized into RAIS and FHIS group. Deviations at the platform, apex, and angle between the planned and final implant positions were assessed in both groups. Additionally, the evaluation of instrument and surgical complications was examined. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients (median age: 35.35 ± 12.55 years; 43 males, 97 females) with 140 implants from four different research centers were included, with 70 patients (70 implants) in the RAIS group and 70 patients (70 implants) in the FHIS group. In the RAIS and FHIS groups, the median platform deviations were 0.76 ± 0.36 mm and 1.48 ± 0.93 mm, respectively (p < 0.001); median apex deviations were 0.85 ± 0.48 mm and 2.14 ± 1.25 mm, respectively (p < 0.001); and median angular deviations were 2.05 ± 1.33° and 7.36 ± 4.67°, respectively (p < 0.001). Similar significant difference also presented between RAIS and FHIS group in platform vertical/horizontal deviation, apex vertical/horizontal deviation. Additionally, implants with self-tapping characteristics exhibited significantly larger deviations compared with those without self-tapping characteristics in the RAIS group. Both RAIS and FHIS methods demonstrated comparable morbidity and safety pre- and post-operation. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that the RAIS method demonstrated superior accuracy in single dental implant placement compared with the FHIS method. Specifically, RAIS exhibited significantly smaller deviations in platform, apex, and angular positions, as well as platform and apex vertical/horizontal deviations. This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization. https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=195045.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→