Accuracy of dental implant placement with a robotic system in partially edentulous patients: A prospective, single‐arm clinical trial

Abstract

Objectives This clinical study aimed to assess the accuracy of implant positions using a robotic system in partially edentulous patients. Materials and Methods Twenty‐eight partially edentulous patients received 31 implants using the robotic system. Deviations between the planned and placed implants were calculated after surgery. The deviations were compared with objective performance goals (OPGs) from reported studies of fully guided static computer‐assisted implant surgery (CAIS) and dynamic CAIS. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to investigate the possible effects of the type and side of the arch, implant location, and implant dimensions on the deviations. Results The evaluation of 31 implants resulted in a mean angle deviation of 2.81 ± 1.13° (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.40–3.23°), while the 3D deviations at the implant shoulder and apex were 0.53 ± 0.23 mm (95% CI 0.45–0.62 mm) and 0.53 ± 0.24 mm (95% CI 0.44–0.61 mm), respectively. The upper limits of the 95% CI of 3D deviations were lower than those of the corresponding OPGs; however, the angle deviation was similar to that of the OPG. No statistically significant differences were found for the type and side of the arch, implant location, and implant dimensions to the deviations (p > .05). Conclusions The robotic system appears to achieve higher accuracy in implant positions than static and dynamic CAIS in partially edentulous patients (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300067587).

Accuracy of implant placement via dynamic navigation and autonomous robotic computer‐assisted implant surgery methods: A retrospective study

“…In our study, the r‐CAIS technology displayed higher accuracy than that of the d‐CAIS technology in the angular, coronal global and apical global values, which is consistent with previous studies (Chen, Al‐Taezi, et al., 2023; Chen, Bai, et al., 2023; Parra‐Tresserra et al., 2021). These deviations can be attributed to the following factors.…”

“…Various comparisons of implant placement accuracy of the three techniques have been performed, but no statistically significant difference has been found between s‐CAIS and d‐CAIS regarding angular, apical and coronal deviations of the implant position (Gargallo‐Albiol et al., 2019; Pellegrino et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2020). New r‐CAIS technologies are constantly being created, updated and tested in vitro and in vivo (Cao et al., 2020; Chen, Al‐Taezi, et al., 2023; Feng et al., 2022; Kan et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023), few studies compare r‐CAIS with the other two systems (Bolding & Reebye, 2022; Chen, Bai, et al., 2023; Mozer, 2020; Parra‐Tresserra et al., 2021; Tao et al., 2022). Furthermore, most studies are case reports (Bolding & Reebye, 2022; Mozer, 2020), compare previous findings with a small sample size (Chen, Al‐Taezi, et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2023) or are in vitro studies (Chen, Bai, et al., 2023; Tao et al., 2022), in which the clinical factors cannot be completely reproduced or calculated, such as jaw tremors, saliva and bleeding, limited mouth opening and real bone reaction to the surgery (Bai et al., 2021; Parra‐Tresserra et al., 2021).…”

“…A recent single‐arm clinical trial (Chen, Al‐Taezi, et al., 2023) compared the accuracy of r‐CAIS with objective performance goals from reported studies of s‐CAIS and d‐CAIS, showing that, in partially edentulous patients, the implant position accuracy of r‐CAIS appears to be higher than that of s‐CAIS and d‐CAIS; however, the study lacked a comparison group and patient‐reported outcome measures. And the robotic system was assessed using a small sample of 31 implants.…”

Improved positional accuracy of dental implant placement using a haptic and machine‐vision‐controlled collaborative surgery robot: A pilot randomized controlled trial

“…The present data show that the performance of the control (freehand) group was similar to that of previously reported trials Implant length 8/10 mm 1/9 2/8 (Tattan et al, 2020). Data for the test group showed significantly less positional accuracy compared to reports from case series (Chen et al, 2023;Qiao et al, 2023;S. Yang et al, 2023).…”

“…In vitro studies have reported excellent positional accuracy of robot-assisted implant placement (Cheng et al, 2021;Tao et al, 2022). Case series point to the safety and accuracy of robot-assisted implant placement (Chen et al, 2023;S. Yang et al, 2023).…”