Accuracy of implants placed using stackable static surgical guides for full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A retrospective study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accuracy of implants placed using stackable static surgical guides for full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A retrospective study. Thomas Palmer Stanley, D.D.S., M.S. Aim: The primary objective is to investigate the accuracy of implants placed with stackable static surgical guides of Synergy Guided Workflow® (Absolute Dental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, USA) for the purpose of full-arch rehabilitation with implant-supported screw-retained fixed dental prostheses. The secondary objectives are to evaluate the implant and prosthesis survival rates, and prosthetic maintenance needs. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled patients who underwent Synergy Guided Workflow® for 1 or more arches from January 2020 – March 2025. Post-operative CBCTs were be uploaded to coDiagnostiX® (Dental Wings Inc., Montreal, Canada) Treatment Evaluation module and superimposed with the pre-operative CBCT containing the surgical and prosthetic plan. The planned dental implant was superimposed to the final position using tangential, cross-sectional, and axial views. Global angular deviation, 3D offset (base), and 3D offset (tip) was collected for each implant. Results: 24 were identified utilizing Synergy Guided Workflow® stackable static surgical guides. 11 patients (17 arches with 73 implants) met the inclusion criteria for the study. The mean total angular global deviation was 4.23±2.80°, 3D offset at the base 1.40±0.86 mm and 3D offset at the tip was 1.60±0.89 mm. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.49, 0.52, and 0.49 was calculated for comparison between individual surgical guides in global deviation, 3D offset (base) and (tip), respectively, indicating moderate reliability. Conclusion: Stackable static surgical guides streamline restorative procedures and have similar accuracy of static guides in total global angular deviation, 3D offset at the base and tip as static guides. Accepted standard 2 mm safety margin should still be considered when using the Synergy Guided Workflow® stackable static surgical guides.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".