Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41075029›Full record

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.

Bin-Zhang Wu, Qian-Xiao Liu, Xi-Yuan Luo, Ming-Pei Gao, Peng-Fei Jia, Li-Feng Wang, Hong Su, Zi-Yu Yan, Nian-Hui Cui

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Bin-Zhang Wu *First Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices, No. 37A, Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, People's Republic of China.
Qian-Xiao Liu *Beijing Stomatological Hospital, School of Stomatology, Capital Medical University, No.9, Fanjia Village Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, People's Republic of China.
Xi-Yuan Luo *Peking University School of Stomatology, No. 22, Zhongguancun South Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, People's Republic of China.
Ming-Pei GaoPeking University School of Stomatology, No. 22, Zhongguancun South Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, People's Republic of China.
Peng-Fei JiaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices, No. 22, Zhongguancun South Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, People's Republic of China.
Li-Feng WangBeijing Yakebot Technology Co., Ltd, No. 28, Building F, Room 616 Andingmen East Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Hong SuFirst Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices, No. 37A, Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, People's Republic of China. suhong@pkuss.bjmu.edu.cn.
Zi-Yu YanDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices, No. 22, Zhongguancun South Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, People's Republic of China. yanziyu@bjmu.edu.cn.
Nian-Hui CuiDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices, No. 22, Zhongguancun South Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, People's Republic of China. drcuinianhui@163.com.

Funding

Beijing Natural Science Foundation L252199National Natural Science Foundation of China No.82571131Program for New Clinical Techniques and Therapies of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology PKUSSNCT-22A11/PKUSSNCT-25B12Program for Series Clinical Research Special Project of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology PKUSS-2024CRF105
6 · The paper itself

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

MandibleMolar, ThirdOsteotomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresTooth ExtractionTooth, ImpactedCone-Beam Computed TomographyFeasibility StudiesHumansIn Vitro TechniquesAccuracyActive robotCortical-window osteotomyIn vitro modelMandibular third molarMinimally invasive surgeryModified mid-segment-first extractionTooth sectioning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.