Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study

Abstract

Background To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment. Methods 10 partially edentulous jaws models were included in this study, and 20 sites were randomly assigned into two groups: the dental implant robotic system (THETA) group and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) group. 20 implants were placed in the defects according to each manufacturer’s protocol respectively. The implant platform, apex and angle deviations were measured by fusion of the preoperative design and the actual postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D Slicer software. Data were analyzed by t - test and Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 20 implants were placed in 10 phantoms. The comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation in THETA group were 0.58 ± 0.31 mm, 0.69 ± 0.28 mm, and 1.08 ± 0.66° respectively, while in Yizhimei group, the comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation were 0.73 ± 0.20 mm, 0.86 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.32 ± 0.71° respectively. The angulation deviation in THETA group was significantly smaller than the Yizhimei group, and there was no significant difference in the deviation of the platform and apex of the implants placed using THETA and Yizhimei, respectively. Conclusion The implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system, especially the angular deviation was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system, suggesting that the THETA robotic system could be a promising tool in dental implant surgery in the future. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the current results.

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.…”

“…The accuracy is in accordance with that in recent systematic reviews (Pellegrino et al, 2021;Yu et al, 2023) showing that the angle, average coronal and apical deviations of d-CAIS are approximately 2-7°, 0.5-1.5 mm and 0.5-2.0 mm, respectively. Common reasons for the deviations of the d-CAIS system include the following: The weight and volume of the mobile locator affects the operation stability and increases operator fatigue (Chen, Bai, et al, 2023); the deflection caused by hand tremors due to dense bone when performing the osteotomies and placement of the implants (Block et al, 2017); incorrect calibration due to any small looseness or movement between the involved elements (Parra-Tresserra et al, 2021); the accuracy and quality of CBCT scan data. Note: No significant difference was observed (p > .05).…”

“…A retrospective analysis of medical records from patients that had underwent implant surgery with partial edentulous jaw by using a The sample size was calculated from a recent in vitro study (Chen, Bai, et al, 2023) on the linear and angular deviations between the planned and placed implants by using d-CAIS and r-CAIS. Minimum sample size calculations were performed using a software program (G*power, v.3.1.9.7; Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf) for two independent mean comparisons (t-tests) with a study efficacy of 80% and a significance level of 0.05 (α = 0.05, 2 tails), which resulted in obtaining the minimum number of total samples required for coronal global, apical global and angular deviations was separately calculated as 96, 104, and 12.…”

“…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). Studies have shown that implant accuracy in in vivo trials is lower than in in vitro and ex vivo models, especially in apical global and axial deviations (Albaqawi, 2023;Bover-Ramos et al, 2018).…”

Effect of implant shape and length on the accuracy of robot‐assisted immediate implant surgery: An in vitro study

“…However, implant accuracy could be affected by several factors during immediate implant placement. The implant shape and length may have a significant influence, even with computer assistance (Chen, Bai, et al, 2023). Although deviations in the platform, apex, and angle are acceptable, the unevenness of the bone defect and lack of bone volume during the immediate implant placement process may also affect the maneuverability of the operator to an extent (Chackartchi et al, 2022;Miller & Bier, 2006).…”