ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluating the relationship between clinician experience and accuracy in robotic-assisted dental implant placement: a retrospective 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. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to evaluate the accuracy of Level of Autonomy 2 (LOA2) robotic-assisted implant placement by dentists with varying experience, analyze learning curves, and identify accuracy-related risk factors. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 362 patients (585 implants) who underwent LOA2 robotic-assisted implant placement (April 2022-April 2024). Six novice clinicians (no robotic experience) and two expert clinicians (> 50 robotic surgeries) were included. Seven deviation parameters were assessed by comparing planned and actual implant positions. Thirteen potential risk factors were evaluated using statistical analyses in R.
resultsAfter extraoral robotic training, novice clinicians achieved accuracy comparable to experts, with minor exceptions: vertical platform deviation (0.373 ± 0.566 mm vs. 0.255 ± 0.438 mm, p = 0.007) and vertical apex deviation (0.348 ± 0.488 mm vs. 0.249 ± 0.437 mm, p = 0.009). Learning curves for both groups remained flat (coefficient < 0.001), with no significant accuracy improvement over cases increase. Key risk factors for increased deviations included: immediate/early implantation; implant length > 10 mm; poor bone quality; maxillary placement (p < 0.05), and machined-related factors.
conclusionsThe LOA 2 robotic-assisted implant system minimizes the dependence of implant placement accuracy on clinician experience, with only minor differences in vertical deviations between novices and experts. Even though accuracy remains at a high level, high deviations are associated not only with traditional risk factors but also with machine-related risks.
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.