ArticleBMC oral health2025
Accuracy of robot-assisted dental implant surgery and its clinical influencing factors: a retrospective case series of 100 patients.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Application and prospect of digital technology in endodontic microsurgery].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2026Review
- Robot-Assisted Dentistry: What the Evidence Supports and Which Outcomes Are Still Missing.Cureus · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis retrospective study aimed to investigate the accuracy of robot-assisted implant surgery and identify the factors influencing it.
methodsPatients with single or multiple missing teeth were enrolled in the robot-assisted implant surgery. The patients underwent cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using a marker. Virtual implant placement and a drilling sequence were planned prior to surgery. The robotic arm automatically performed the implant osteotomy and placement under the surgeon’s supervision. A postoperative CBCT scan was performed to evaluate deviations between the planned and placed implants.
resultsA total of 152 implants were successfully inserted into the jawbones of 100 patients without any adverse surgical events. However, two implants were observed to fail early (< 1 month). An overall coronal deviation of 0.51 ± 0.02 mm, apical deviation of 0.53 ± 0.02 mm, and angular deviation of 1.05 ± 0.05° were observed. The angular deviation of the first nearest site in the free-end position was significantly lower than that of the second or third nearest site (p = 0.043). Additionally, the coronal and apical deviations were significantly decreased with the accumulation of clinical experience (p = 0.014 and p = 0.001, respectively). However, no significant differences were found among jaw location, position, implant diameter, or length (p > 0.05).
conclusionsRobot-assisted dental implant surgery resulted in an accurate placement performance. Further studies are required to clarify long-term effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.