File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of marker-based and marker-free registration techniques in dynamic navigation-guided implant surgery for fully and partially edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

TitleComparison of marker-based and marker-free registration techniques in dynamic navigation-guided implant surgery for fully and partially edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Issue Date4-Jun-2025
PublisherSpringer Nature [academic journals on nature.com]
Citation
Evidence-Based Dentistry, 2025 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: To compare the accuracy of marker-based and marker-free registration methods in the context of dynamic navigation guided implant surgery for patients with partial or complete tooth loss. Methodology: The review includes research articles written in English and Mandarin Chinese published between January 2013 and May 2025, from databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Web of Science. Both laboratory-based and clinical investigations were taken into account. Thirteen studies, met the specified criteria for inclusion and underwent meta-analysis. Sub-analyses were performed to compare various registration modalities. The assessment of collective evidence was conducted using the GRADE system. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between registration methodologies i.e; marker based and marker free. Subgroup analysis highlighted a preference for marker-based methods, specifically those utilizing U-shaped markers and bone markers, especially in the lower jaw. No notable variations were noted in terms of time efficiency. Marker-free registration was favored for outcomes reported by patients. Conclusion: Both marker-free and marker-based registration strategies are considered feasible options. Selection should be made based on factors such as practicality, cost, efficiency, clinician preference, and patient-reported outcomes. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the considerable variability among studies, underscoring the necessity for more consistent and dependable data. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42024504573.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/357641
ISSN
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.247
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGul, Meisha-
dc.contributor.authorTao, Baoxin-
dc.contributor.authorZhou, Wenjie-
dc.contributor.authorWang, Feng-
dc.contributor.authorWu, Yiqun-
dc.date.accessioned2025-07-22T03:14:01Z-
dc.date.available2025-07-22T03:14:01Z-
dc.date.issued2025-06-04-
dc.identifier.citationEvidence-Based Dentistry, 2025-
dc.identifier.issn1462-0049-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/357641-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To compare the accuracy of marker-based and marker-free registration methods in the context of dynamic navigation guided implant surgery for patients with partial or complete tooth loss. Methodology: The review includes research articles written in English and Mandarin Chinese published between January 2013 and May 2025, from databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Web of Science. Both laboratory-based and clinical investigations were taken into account. Thirteen studies, met the specified criteria for inclusion and underwent meta-analysis. Sub-analyses were performed to compare various registration modalities. The assessment of collective evidence was conducted using the GRADE system. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between registration methodologies i.e; marker based and marker free. Subgroup analysis highlighted a preference for marker-based methods, specifically those utilizing U-shaped markers and bone markers, especially in the lower jaw. No notable variations were noted in terms of time efficiency. Marker-free registration was favored for outcomes reported by patients. Conclusion: Both marker-free and marker-based registration strategies are considered feasible options. Selection should be made based on factors such as practicality, cost, efficiency, clinician preference, and patient-reported outcomes. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the considerable variability among studies, underscoring the necessity for more consistent and dependable data. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42024504573.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSpringer Nature [academic journals on nature.com]-
dc.relation.ispartofEvidence-Based Dentistry-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.titleComparison of marker-based and marker-free registration techniques in dynamic navigation-guided implant surgery for fully and partially edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/s41432-025-01171-2-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-105007232344-
dc.identifier.eissn1476-5446-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:001501878100001-
dc.identifier.issnl1462-0049-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats