ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2025
Accuracy evaluation of robot-guided laser osteotomy for dental implant bed preparation - a digital high-tech procedure.
Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The accuracy and reproducibility of emerging high-tech procedures for dental implant placement need continuous evaluation. This is essential to facilitate the transition from conventional surgical guides to digital planning systems. This study investigates the accuracy of implant placement using robot-guided laser technology based on cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral scanning. Methods: Twelve dental implants were placed using surgical planning software and a robot-guided laser osteotome. The procedure incorporated surface scanning and enabled implant bed preparation using a robot-guided laser. Results: The mean overall 3D offset (mean ± SD) was 2.50 ± 1.30 mm at the base and 2.80 ± 1.00 mm at the tip, with a mean angular deviation of 6.60 ± 3.10°. Conclusion: The results demonstrate a considerably greater deviation than conventional guided systems. In the context of the high demands of oral surgery, accuracy is particularly susceptible to fluctuations, some of which may stem from intermediate workflow steps, particularly due to the early development stage of the robotic system. Notably, the absence of real-time depth measurement and robot-assisted implant placement remains a significant constraint. However, future technological advances are expected to address these challenges.
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.