ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of the accuracy of semi-autonomous robotic system versus dynamic navigation in completely edentulous implant surgery: an in vitro study.
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 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.
- Comparative accuracy analysis of robotic and static guided implant surgery: a retrospective clinical study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared the accuracy (defined by trueness and precision) of implant placement between a semi-autonomous robotic system (SARS) and a dynamic navigation system (DNS) in completely edentulous models, evaluating the influence of alveolar bone morphology and implant orientation.
methodsThirty-two completely edentulous models were divided by anterior ridge morphology (well-rounded or narrow). Following the All-on-4 protocol, anterior implants were placed vertically, and posterior implants were inserted vertically or at a distal tilt using either SARS or DNS. Planning was conducted virtually, and deviations were assessed postoperatively via CBCT. Mann-Whitney U test and linear mixed model were used for statistical analysis.
resultsAll 128 implants were placed successfully. Platform global deviations were 0.69 ± 0.29 mm (SARS) and 0.72 ± 0.41 mm (DNS); apical global deviations were 0.74 ± 0.27 mm (SARS) and 0.70 ± 0.40 mm (DNS). SARS achieved significantly lower angular deviation (superior trueness) overall (P < .05), particularly in distally tilted implants (P < .001). On well-rounded ridges, SARS showed smaller global and lateral platform deviations (P < .05). On narrow ridges, SARS had larger platform and apical depth deviations (P < .01) but maintained better angular control (P < .01). Precision analysis revealed that SARS achieved superior platform precision under complex conditions (distally tilted implants and narrow ridges), while on well-rounded ridges, it showed higher apical precision and more consistent angular control.
conclusionBoth SARS and DNS demonstrated excellent accuracy in completely edentulous models. Furthermore, the SARS showed superior angular trueness and platform precision in distally tilted implant placement and complex bone morphology.
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.