In Guevara 2024 et al., on implant placement accuracy, which surgeon had significantly higher odds of success?
A. Surgeon 1
B. Surgeon 3
C. Surgeon 4
D. Surgeon 2
E. Surgeon 6
Answer: Surgeon 2
Explanation: Surgeon 2, who also designed the guides, had the highest odds (OR = 9.61, p = .001).
In Guevara 2024 et al., on implant placement accuracy, what was the odds ratio (OR) for successful placement using freehand compared to 3DPG?
A. 0.78 (p = 0.04)
B. 1.25 (p = 0.10)
C. 0.47 (p < .01)
D. 0.28 (p < .0001)
E. 1.62 (p = .03)
Answer: 0.28 (p < .0001)
Explanation: Freehand technique was significantly less likely to result in acceptable placement (OR = 0.28, p < .0001).
In Guevara 2024 et al., on implant placement accuracy, which vertebra had the lowest odds of acceptable pin placement?
A. T13
B. L6
C. T11
D. T10
E. L1
Answer: T10
Explanation: T10 had the lowest OR for success (0.10), likely due to anatomical and guide design complexity.
In Guevara 2024 et al., on implant placement accuracy, what was considered an acceptable placement grade using the modified Zdichavsky classification?
A. I and IIa
B. I and IIb
C. IIa and IIIa
D. I and IIIb
E. I only
Answer: I and IIa
Explanation: Grades I and IIa were deemed acceptable; grades IIb, IIIa, and IIIb were unacceptable.
In Guevara 2024 et al., on implant placement accuracy, what was the rate of acceptable pin placement using 3D-printed guides?
A. 63.6%
B. 69.8%
C. 87.5%
D. 48.3%
E. 64.4%
Answer: 87.5%
Explanation: The 3DPG group had an acceptable placement rate of 87.5% vs 69.8% in FH group.