ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative accuracy analysis of robotic and static guided implant surgery: a retrospective clinical 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. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic Computer-Assisted Dental Implant Surgery Versus Free-Hand and Guided Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of robot-assisted implantation by comparing it with guide-assisted implantation in different surgical contexts, including immediate implantation, multi-tooth implantation, maxillary sinus lift, and bone defect.
methodsPatients receiving implantation with static guide-assisted implant procedures or robot-assisted procedures were classified into the guide group (30 patients, 31 implants) and robot group (30 patients, 32 implants), respectively. Pre- and post-operative CBCT scans were processed with software for 3D reconstruction. Deviations between the original plan and actual implant placement at the apical level, cervical level, and implant angulation were projected into mesio-distal and bucco-lingual directions respectively, and were measured for analysis along with depth discrepancy.
resultsComparing with guide group in this study, the robot group enjoyed smaller angular deviations in both bucco-lingual direction (1.289° ± 1.067 vs. 0.483° ± 0.334, P<0.01) and mesio-distal direction (1.652° ± 1.421 vs. 0.509° ± 0.426, P<0.01). Deviation analysis also demonstrated the advantage of robot system in controlling deviation at cervical (B-L: 0.461 ± 0.310mm vs. 0.183 ± 0.190mm, P<0.01; M-D: 0.441 ± 0.231mm vs. 0.121 ± 0.125mm, P<0.01) and apical distance (B-L: 0.508 ± 0.330mm vs. 0.164 ± 0.154mm, P<0.01; M-D: 0.476 ± 0.346mm vs. 0.135 ± 0.124mm, P<0.01). No important difference was noted in depth accuracy (0.426 ± 0.205, 0.335 ± 0.029, P>0.05). Notably, the precision of robotic implant placement remained consistently high across various procedures, including conventional, immediate, bone defect, class IV bone, sinus elevation, and multiple-tooth placements, with no important variation.
conclusionCompared to guide-assisted techniques, the robotic implantation system offers superior accuracy in clinical implanting contexts. Its integration allows surgeons to focus more on planning and evaluation workflow, reducing manual effort and potentially lowering labor costs.
trial registrationFull name of the registry: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Trial registration number: ChiCTR2500109094. This study was retrospectively registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( www.chictr.org.cn ) on 11th Sept 2025.
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.