You will be presented with a collection of medical randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports addressing a shared clinical question -- for instance, the efficacy of a medical intervention on a disease or condition. Given the titles and abstracts of these reports, your task is to generate the conclusion of the systematic review article synthesizing the key findings. Your conclusion should be a few sentences long. In your response, include only the conclusion and no other text. The RCT reports are below.



Title 1:
Comparison of panoramic and conventional cross-sectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size.
Abstract 1:
OBJECTIVE To compare panoramic and conventional cross-sectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size for three implant systems ( Brånemark , Straumann ( ® ) , 3i ) . MATERIAL AND METHODS Presurgical panoramic ( Pan ) and cross-sectional tomograms ( Tomo ) of 121 implant sites in 121 patients scheduled for single-tooth implant treatment were recorded ; in 70 of the Pans ( Pan-B ) , a metal ball was placed in the edentulous area . By means of dedicated software , an implant with subjectively determined proper dimensions for the respective site was outlined by manually placing four reference points in each image by three observers . Additionally , four reference points corresponding to the margins of the metal ball were manually placed in Pan-Bs . The length and width of the implant were calculated after calibration to the reference ball ( true magnification ) in Pan-Bs and to a " st and ard " calibration method in all images ( magnification factor 1.25 in Pans and 1.7 in Tomos ) . Based on the corrected dimensions , the nearest , smaller implant size was selected among those available in each of the three implant systems . RESULTS When comparing Pans with Tomos , selected implant size differed in on average 89 % of the cases . The length differed in 69 % and the width in 66 % . Implants planned on Tomos were longer than those planned on Pans in 47 % and narrower in 30 % ( < 10 % in posterior regions ) . The Straumann ( ® ) system , with the smallest range of available implant sizes was significantly less affected by the radiographic method compared with the other two systems . CONCLUSION The selected implant size differed considerably when planned on panoramic or cross-sectional tomographs


Title 2:
Study on the necessity for cross-section imaging of the posterior mandible for treatment planning of standard cases in implant dentistry.
Abstract 2:
OBJECTIVE To investigate whether cross-section imaging influences the planning and therapy of st and ard implant cases in the posterior m and ible . MATERIAL AND METHODS In a prospect i ve study conducted over 16 months , the planned treatment ( st and ard implant therapy without bone augmentation procedures in the premolar and molar regions of the m and ible ) was compared with the postoperative result in 50 r and omly selected patients .  Clinical examinations and panoramic radiographs were performed pre- and postoperatively , whereas cross-sectional tomography was performed only preoperatively . RESULTS The vertical magnification factor in the panoramic radiographs was very constant pre- and postoperatively with 1 : 1.27 and in the spiral tomograms with 1 : 1.52 . In 11 of 77 implant sites , the m and ibular canal could not be evaluated in the spiral tomograms . The additional information from cross-sectional spiral tomography did not influence the original planning in 74 of 77 ( 96.1 % ) implant sites . Based on the postoperative panoramic radiograph , the average distance from the tip of the implants to the m and ibular canal was 3.04+/-2.06 mm . In two cases ( 2.6 % ) , transient postoperative altered tactile sensation of the mental nerve was found . CONCLUSION The information from preoperative cross-sectional spiral tomography has minor impact on treatment planning in st and ard implant cases in m and ibular premolar and molar regions . The clinical examination provides sufficient information for selecting implant diameter and the panoramic radiograph provides sufficient information for implant length selection


Title 3:
Comparison of cone-beam imaging with orthopantomography and computerized tomography for assessment in presurgical implant dentistry.
Abstract 3:
PURPOSE To establish a basis for weighing the potential diagnostic and therapeutic benefits of three-dimensional cone-beam ( CB ) data sets in contrast to digital orthopantomography ( OPG ) and computerized tomography ( CT ) in implant dentistry . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Twenty-seven patients requiring implant surgery received a single presurgical CB scan .  A follow-up digital OPG was taken within a maximal postsurgical period of 2 weeks . For comparison purpose s , a control group of 29 patients receiving CT as well as CB diagnosis was analyzed . Image quality of the different modalities was ranked retrospectively by five experienced examiners ( from excellent to insufficient ) for up to 10 defined criteria , including general image quality and several specific structures . The results were analyzed statistically , and interobserver agreement was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients ( ICCs ) . RESULTS The median rating for all investigated criteria was good for CB imaging and between good and insufficient for OPG in the dental implant group . Except for general image quality , statistical analysis showed that CB imaging was significantly superior to  OPG imaging for all investigated anatomic structures . With a few exceptions , all investigated anatomic structures in CT and CB imaging were rated excellent in the control group . No significant difference between CT and CB imaging was detected in the control group for all investigated criteria . With a few exceptions , ICCs were higher for CB images than for OPG . In the control group , ICCs for CT and CB images were similar , with a few exceptions . CONCLUSION The results of the present study confirm superior radiographic visualization for all important high-contrast structures in presurgical implant dentistry assessment for CB imaging in contrast to OPG and a CT-like degree of information for high-contrast structures in CB data sets . Clinical ly , however , the elevated radiation dosages transmitted by CB imaging must be taken into account
Notwithst and ing , it may be tentatively inferred that cross-sectional imaging has a therapeutic impact in the more challenging cases .
In terms of impact , this review has found no evidence to support any specific imaging modality when planning dental implant placement in any region of the mouth .