ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Accuracy comparison between active robot and freehand techniques in modified mid-segment-first extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: an in vitro study.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trueness analysis of a robot-assisted system for maxillary supernumerary anterior tooth removal: an in vitro study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study compared the precision of cortical-window osteotomy and tooth sectioning performed with an active robotic system versus conventional freehand techniques during the modified mid-segment-first (MMSF) extraction of impacted mandibular third molars (M3Ms). The feasibility of applying active robotic technology to alveolar surgery was also assessed. Standardized mandibular replicas containing fully impacted horizontal M3Ms (n = 18 per group) were allocated into two groups: an active robot-assisted group (ARG) and a freehand group (FHG). For all specimens, preoperative CBCT scans were merged with intraoral digital impressions to design the osteotomy and tooth sectioning pathways. Primary endpoints were cortical bony window accuracy and tooth segmentation accuracy. Dice similarity scores were significantly higher in the ARG compared with FHG (0.90 ± 0.03 vs. 0.29 ± 0.09, p < 0.001). Root mean square (RMS) deviation (0.14 [0.10-0.22] mm vs. 1.39 [1.07-2.09] mm, p < 0.001) and angular deviation (2.02 [1.31-3.16]° vs. 19.48 [13.30-29.07]°, p < 0.001) were lower in the ARG group, as was bone injury depth (0.00 [0.00-1.15] mm vs. 2.21 [0.89-3.56] mm, p < 0.001). Both excessive and insufficient removal were significantly less frequent in robotic procedures (p < 0.001). Robotic-assisted MMSF extraction demonstrated greater precision, reduced invasiveness, and improved safety compared to freehand techniques in vitro. These findings support the preliminary feasibility of active robotic systems in alveolar surgery; however, as this was an in vitro study, further evaluation is needed to balance the gains in accuracy against the inherent limitations. This study provides the first quantitative in vitro evidence validating the technical feasibility of an active robotic platform for dentoalveolar surgery, laying the groundwork for future clinical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41075029What 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.