Purpose: This study investigated the impact of the guide hole height on the accuracy of implant placement using CAD/ CAM-fabricated surgical guides in resin models. The hypothesis is that decreasing the height of the guide hole reduces placement accuracy. Materials and Methods: Ten identical partially edentulous maxillary models were each fitted with surgical guides featuring guide hole heights of 1 mm, 3 mm, and/or 5 mm. Using a surgical guide and drill kit, implants were placed in six predetermined sites per model. Placement accuracy was evaluated by comparing the actual implant positions with the planned positions using digital scanning and computer software analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine the significance of deviations at both the coronal and apical positions. Results: The average deviations were 0.75±0.33 mm at the coronal position and 1.10±0.51 mm at the apical position. Placement accuracy didnot differ with different guide hole heights. Additionally, errors were consistent regardless of the guide hole height and were not influenced by the type of support or the implant placement site. Conclusion In this rotro study, varying the height of the guide hole did not significantly affect the accuracy of implant placement. The results suggest that guide hole height within the tested range does not have a substantial impact on placement errors. Our findings indicate that factors other than the guide holeheight may play a more critical role in implant placement accuracy.

Purpose: This study investigated the impact of the guide hole height on the accuracy of implant placement using CAD/ CAM-fabricated surgical guides in resin models. The hypothesis is that decreasing the height of the guide hole reduces placement accuracy. Materials and Methods: Ten identical partially edentulous maxillary models were each fitted with surgical guides featuring guide hole heights of 1 mm, 3 mm, and/or 5 mm. Using a surgical guide and drill kit, implants were placed in six predetermined sites per model. Placement accuracy was evaluated by comparing the actual implant positions with the planned positions using digital scanning and computer software analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine the significance of deviations at both the coronal and apical positions. Results: The average deviations were 0.75±0.33 mm at the coronal position and 1.10±0.51 mm at the apical position. Placement accuracy didnot differ with different guide hole heights. Additionally, errors were consistent regardless of the guide hole height and were not influenced by the type of support or the implant placement site. Conclusion In this rotro study, varying the height of the guide hole did not significantly affect the accuracy of implant placement. The results suggest that guide hole height within the tested range does not have a substantial impact on placement errors. Our findings indicate that factors other than the guide holeheight may play a more critical role in implant placement accuracy.

Purpose: This retrospective study compared the maxillary sinus floor augmentation techniques (lateral and transcrestal approaches) to assess the impact of bone grafting, graft materials, and initial residual bone height (RBH). Materials and Methods: Fifty patients who underwent maxillary sinus floor augmentation for posterior maxillary implant placement were included. Panoramic radiographs were obtained before surgery (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and 6-10 months post-surgery (T2). Length measurements on panoramic radiographs were performed using a digital caliper at T1 and T2. Statistical validation included one-way ANOVA, t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and correlation analyses. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess associations after adjusting for confounding factors. Results: Of the 50 patients, 35 underwent a transcrestal approach and 15 underwent a lateral approach. The results showed significant endosinus bone gain (ESBG) differences between allogeneic and xenogeneic grafts and no grafts (p < .001). Osteotomy sinus floor elevation without grafting yielded 3.24 ± 1.42 of ESBG. When divided into three groups based on initial RBH, RBH 1 had 27 patients, RBH 2 had 12 patients, and RBH 3 had 11 patients. Within the RBH group 1 (RBH under 4), the lateral approach had significantly greater ESBG than the transcrestal approach (p < .001). Multivariate linear regression analysis confirmed statistically significant associations between the studied variables after adjusting for confounding factors. Conclusion When the RBH is < 4 mm, lateral-approach sinus augmentation and bone grafting should be performed to attain significant ESBG. The RBH, bone graft materials, and sinus elevation techniques vary considerably in ESBG.

Purpose: This retrospective study compared the maxillary sinus floor augmentation techniques (lateral and transcrestal approaches) to assess the impact of bone grafting, graft materials, and initial residual bone height (RBH). Materials and Methods: Fifty patients who underwent maxillary sinus floor augmentation for posterior maxillary implant placement were included. Panoramic radiographs were obtained before surgery (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and 6-10 months post-surgery (T2). Length measurements on panoramic radiographs were performed using a digital caliper at T1 and T2. Statistical validation included one-way ANOVA, t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and correlation analyses. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess associations after adjusting for confounding factors. Results: Of the 50 patients, 35 underwent a transcrestal approach and 15 underwent a lateral approach. The results showed significant endosinus bone gain (ESBG) differences between allogeneic and xenogeneic grafts and no grafts (p < .001). Osteotomy sinus floor elevation without grafting yielded 3.24 ± 1.42 of ESBG. When divided into three groups based on initial RBH, RBH 1 had 27 patients, RBH 2 had 12 patients, and RBH 3 had 11 patients. Within the RBH group 1 (RBH under 4), the lateral approach had significantly greater ESBG than the transcrestal approach (p < .001). Multivariate linear regression analysis confirmed statistically significant associations between the studied variables after adjusting for confounding factors. Conclusion When the RBH is < 4 mm, lateral-approach sinus augmentation and bone grafting should be performed to attain significant ESBG. The RBH, bone graft materials, and sinus elevation techniques vary considerably in ESBG.

Purpose: This study investigated the impact of the guide hole height on the accuracy of implant placement using CAD/ CAM-fabricated surgical guides in resin models. The hypothesis is that decreasing the height of the guide hole reduces placement accuracy. Materials and Methods: Ten identical partially edentulous maxillary models were each fitted with surgical guides featuring guide hole heights of 1 mm, 3 mm, and/or 5 mm. Using a surgical guide and drill kit, implants were placed in six predetermined sites per model. Placement accuracy was evaluated by comparing the actual implant positions with the planned positions using digital scanning and computer software analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine the significance of deviations at both the coronal and apical positions. Results: The average deviations were 0.75±0.33 mm at the coronal position and 1.10±0.51 mm at the apical position. Placement accuracy didnot differ with different guide hole heights. Additionally, errors were consistent regardless of the guide hole height and were not influenced by the type of support or the implant placement site. Conclusion In this rotro study, varying the height of the guide hole did not significantly affect the accuracy of implant placement. The results suggest that guide hole height within the tested range does not have a substantial impact on placement errors. Our findings indicate that factors other than the guide holeheight may play a more critical role in implant placement accuracy.

Purpose: This retrospective study compared the maxillary sinus floor augmentation techniques (lateral and transcrestal approaches) to assess the impact of bone grafting, graft materials, and initial residual bone height (RBH). Materials and Methods: Fifty patients who underwent maxillary sinus floor augmentation for posterior maxillary implant placement were included. Panoramic radiographs were obtained before surgery (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and 6-10 months post-surgery (T2). Length measurements on panoramic radiographs were performed using a digital caliper at T1 and T2. Statistical validation included one-way ANOVA, t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and correlation analyses. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess associations after adjusting for confounding factors. Results: Of the 50 patients, 35 underwent a transcrestal approach and 15 underwent a lateral approach. The results showed significant endosinus bone gain (ESBG) differences between allogeneic and xenogeneic grafts and no grafts (p < .001). Osteotomy sinus floor elevation without grafting yielded 3.24 ± 1.42 of ESBG. When divided into three groups based on initial RBH, RBH 1 had 27 patients, RBH 2 had 12 patients, and RBH 3 had 11 patients. Within the RBH group 1 (RBH under 4), the lateral approach had significantly greater ESBG than the transcrestal approach (p < .001). Multivariate linear regression analysis confirmed statistically significant associations between the studied variables after adjusting for confounding factors. Conclusion When the RBH is < 4 mm, lateral-approach sinus augmentation and bone grafting should be performed to attain significant ESBG. The RBH, bone graft materials, and sinus elevation techniques vary considerably in ESBG.

Purpose: This study investigated the impact of the guide hole height on the accuracy of implant placement using CAD/ CAM-fabricated surgical guides in resin models. The hypothesis is that decreasing the height of the guide hole reduces placement accuracy. Materials and Methods: Ten identical partially edentulous maxillary models were each fitted with surgical guides featuring guide hole heights of 1 mm, 3 mm, and/or 5 mm. Using a surgical guide and drill kit, implants were placed in six predetermined sites per model. Placement accuracy was evaluated by comparing the actual implant positions with the planned positions using digital scanning and computer software analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine the significance of deviations at both the coronal and apical positions. Results: The average deviations were 0.75±0.33 mm at the coronal position and 1.10±0.51 mm at the apical position. Placement accuracy didnot differ with different guide hole heights. Additionally, errors were consistent regardless of the guide hole height and were not influenced by the type of support or the implant placement site. Conclusion In this rotro study, varying the height of the guide hole did not significantly affect the accuracy of implant placement. The results suggest that guide hole height within the tested range does not have a substantial impact on placement errors. Our findings indicate that factors other than the guide holeheight may play a more critical role in implant placement accuracy.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.