ArticleBMC oral health2026
Clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes of robotic-assisted versus static computer-assisted implant surgery: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes of dental implant placement using static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) versus a robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) system over a 12-month follow-up period. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective comparative study was designed as an exploratory analysis of clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes. It included 36 patients receiving 103 implants, allocated to either the sCAIS group (14 patients, 54 implants) or the RAS group (22 patients, 49 implants). Assessments included implant placement accuracy, marginal bone loss (MBL) at 6 and 12 months, pocket depth and bleeding on probe for peri-implant soft tissue health, implant survival/success rates, and patient-reported outcomes via the OHIP-14 questionnaire and a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for intraoperative satisfaction.
resultsThe RAS group demonstrated significantly higher placement accuracy, with lower deviations in vertical and horizontal dimensions at both the implant shoulder and apex (all p < 0.05). While MBL was comparable at 6 months, at the 12-month follow-up the RAS group showed significantly less bone loss on the mesial (p = 0.0117), distal (p = 0.0114), and lingual/palatal aspects (p = 0.0060). Peri-implant soft tissue health and cumulative success rates (98.1% for sCAIS vs. 100% for RAS) were not significantly different. Patients reported significantly higher intraoperative satisfaction with sCAIS (p < 0.001), but the RAS group reported a significantly better postoperative quality of life (lower OHIP-14 scores, p = 0.0010).
conclusionWhile both robotic and static guided systems yield high clinical success rates, robotic-assisted surgery provided greater placement accuracy and suggested a potential for better long-term preservation of peri-implant bone. These preliminary findings, which require confirmation through larger prospective studies, came at the cost of lower intraoperative satisfaction, even as patients reported a better postoperative quality of life.
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.