SynthesisOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
Approaches in apical microsurgery: conventional vs. guided. A systematic review.
Synthesis in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transfrenular Single-Incision (TrSI) Flaps: A Modified Minimally Invasive Technique That Optimizes Aesthetic Outcomes in Maxillary Central Incisor Apicoectomy-Technique Description and Case Report.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Mesiobuccal root morphology influences biomechanical stability after endodontic microsurgery in maxillary first molars: a finite element analysis study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Microsurgical techniques in periodontics - A review.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Endodontic surgery using 3D-guides in-house manufacturing and trephine burs for osteotomy and root-end resection: a proof-of-concept clinical study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionApicoectomy plays a crucial role in the clinical practice of dental professionals. High success rates in this treatment, along with increased precision, suggest that 3D-printed guided apical microsurgery may provide a significant improvement over conventional apical microsurgery. The objectives of this study were to evaluate healing rates in terms of medium- and long-term success percentages and to assess longitudinal deviation rates, measured in millimetres, for both techniques in the apical resection procedure. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and searched three scientific databases-PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus-using specific search algorithms focused on 3D-printed guided apical microsurgery and conventional microsurgery. Articles from 2013 onwards were considered, including randomized clinical trials, case series, observational studies, and cohort studies involving human subjects.
resultsThe initial search yielded a total of 397 articles: PubMed (119), Scopus (137), and Web of Science (141). Of these, 25 were identified as potentially eligible through title and abstract screening. After detailed evaluation, 9 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. The review found that the longitudinal deviation and healing rates were consistently higher for the guided microsurgery technique compared to conventional microsurgery.
conclusionsDespite limitations within the studies, the 3D-printed guided microsurgery technique appears to offer greater precision and a reduced overall impact on the patient's soft tissues during root-end resection, making it a promising option for improving clinical outcomes in apicoectomy procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40178589What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.