Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39161058›Full record

Trial reportClinical implant dentistry and related research2024

Comparative analysis of dental implant placement accuracy: Semi-active robotic versus free-hand techniques: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Fan Yang, Jianping Chen, Ruijue Cao, Qingwei Tang, Haiyan Liu, Yuchen Zheng, BeiLei Liu, Min Huang, Zhenshi Wang, Yude Ding and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Fan YangCenter for Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Stomatology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1308-4827
Jianping ChenCenter for Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Stomatology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.
Ruijue CaoCenter for Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Stomatology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.
Qingwei TangDepartment of Stomatology, Zhejiang Chinese Medicine University, Hangzhou, China.
Haiyan LiuDepartment of Stomatology, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China.
Yuchen ZhengCenter for Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Stomatology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.
BeiLei LiuShanghai Perioimplant Innovation Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Min HuangJiangxi Province Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine, Jiangxi Province Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, The Affiliated Stomatological Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Zhenshi WangJiangxi Province Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine, Jiangxi Province Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, The Affiliated Stomatological Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Yude DingCenter for Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Stomatology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9982-7187
Linhong WangCenter for Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Stomatology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9215-3845

Funding

Major Scientific and Technological Project of Zhejiang Province WKJ-ZJ-2328
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobot-assisted implant surgery has emerged as a novel digital technology, and the accuracy need further assessment. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of single dental implant placement between a novel semi-active robot-assisted implant surgery (RAIS) method and the conventional free-hand implant surgery (FHIS) method through a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients requiring single dental implant placement were recruited and randomized into RAIS and FHIS group. Deviations at the platform, apex, and angle between the planned and final implant positions were assessed in both groups. Additionally, the evaluation of instrument and surgical complications was examined.

resultsA total of 140 patients (median age: 35.35 ± 12.55 years; 43 males, 97 females) with 140 implants from four different research centers were included, with 70 patients (70 implants) in the RAIS group and 70 patients (70 implants) in the FHIS group. In the RAIS and FHIS groups, the median platform deviations were 0.76 ± 0.36 mm and 1.48 ± 0.93 mm, respectively (p < 0.001); median apex deviations were 0.85 ± 0.48 mm and 2.14 ± 1.25 mm, respectively (p < 0.001); and median angular deviations were 2.05 ± 1.33° and 7.36 ± 4.67°, respectively (p < 0.001). Similar significant difference also presented between RAIS and FHIS group in platform vertical/horizontal deviation, apex vertical/horizontal deviation. Additionally, implants with self-tapping characteristics exhibited significantly larger deviations compared with those without self-tapping characteristics in the RAIS group. Both RAIS and FHIS methods demonstrated comparable morbidity and safety pre- and post-operation.

conclusionsThe results indicated that the RAIS method demonstrated superior accuracy in single dental implant placement compared with the FHIS method. Specifically, RAIS exhibited significantly smaller deviations in platform, apex, and angular positions, as well as platform and apex vertical/horizontal deviations. This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization. https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=195045.

Indexed as

Dental Implantation, EndosseousRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultDental ImplantsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedDental Implantsaccuracydental implantsfree‐hand surgeryrandomized controlled trialrobot‐assisted surgerysemi‐active

Identifiers

PMID39161058
PMCPMC11660539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.