Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Accuracy of palatal orthodontic miniscrew placement: Static vs dynamic computer-guided techniques in a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07378618 (Accuracy of Palatal Orthodontic Miniscrew Placement), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Accuracy of Palatal Orthodontic Miniscrew Placement: Static vs Dynamic Computer-Guided Techniques in a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesThis randomized clinical trial compared the accuracy of palatal paramedian miniscrew placement using static computer-assisted surgery (s-CAS) and dynamic computer-assisted surgery (d-CAS). MATERIALS AND
methodsForty subjects (11-17 years) requiring palatal paramedian miniscrew insertion were randomized into two groups to receive two miniscrews placed with s-CAS (Group A; n = 20 subjects, 40 miniscrews) and d-CAS (Group B; n = 20 subjects, 40 miniscrews). Preoperative digital intraoral scans and CBCT images were used for virtual planning. Group A procedures employed patient-specific surgical guides, while group B procedures were performed with real-time navigation. Immediate postoperative CBCT scans were superimposed to measure four accuracy parameters: coronal, apical, depth, and angular deviation from the planned position. Statistical analysis included the mixed-effect model analysis.
resultsEighty miniscrews were analyzed. Mean coronal (p < 0.001), apical (p < 0.001) and angular deviations (p = 0.001) were significantly lower in the s-CAS group compared to the d-CAS group. No significant difference was observed for depth deviation (p = 0.065). The s-CAS technique also exhibited smaller standard deviations and lower maximum deviations across all parameters.
conclusionsStatic computer-assisted surgery achieved greater linear and angular accuracy than dynamic navigation for palatal miniscrew insertion, while vertical control was comparable between the two approaches. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In the present study, static computer-assisted surgery offered superior consistency and accuracy in palatal miniscrew placement, supporting its use in anatomical areas where spatial accuracy is critical to avoid adjacent anatomical structures. Dynamic navigation remains a viable alternative when flexibility, visibility, or same-day digital workflows are prioritized. CLINICAL
trial registrationThe trial was registered in clinicaltrials.gov; reference number. NCT07378618.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42289607What 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.