File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1038/s41432-025-01171-2
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-105007232344
- WOS: WOS:001501878100001
- Find via

Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
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
| Title | 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 |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Issue Date | 4-Jun-2025 |
| Publisher | Springer Nature [academic journals on nature.com] |
| Citation | Evidence-Based Dentistry, 2025 How to Cite? |
| Abstract | Objectives: 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 Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/357641 |
| ISSN | 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.247 |
| ISI Accession Number ID |
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Gul, Meisha | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Tao, Baoxin | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Zhou, Wenjie | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Wang, Feng | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Wu, Yiqun | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-07-22T03:14:01Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-07-22T03:14:01Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025-06-04 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Evidence-Based Dentistry, 2025 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1462-0049 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/357641 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | Objectives: 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.language | eng | - |
| dc.publisher | Springer Nature [academic journals on nature.com] | - |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Evidence-Based Dentistry | - |
| dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
| dc.title | 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 | - |
| dc.type | Article | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1038/s41432-025-01171-2 | - |
| dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-105007232344 | - |
| dc.identifier.eissn | 1476-5446 | - |
| dc.identifier.isi | WOS:001501878100001 | - |
| dc.identifier.issnl | 1462-0049 | - |
