ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparison of the accuracy and efficiency of robot-assisted implant placement using trephine versus conventional serial drilling: an in vitro 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the accuracy and efficiency of implant-site preparation and placement between conventional serial drilling and trephine drilling, with assistance from an implant robot, on varying bone surface inclinations.
methodsA total of 80 implants were placed in a standard polyurethane model using the two drilling methods (conventional serial drilling and trephine drilling) with four different bone surface inclinations (0°, 15°, 30°, 45°), resulting in eight sub-groups. The implant robot was utilized for implant-site preparation and placement. The global coronal deviation, global apical deviation, angular deviation, and implant placement time were recorded as outcome measures.
resultsIn line with the experimental objectives, implants were placed using conventional serial drilling and trephine drilling techniques under conditions of different bone surface inclinations. While no significant difference was observed in implant accuracy, the trephine drilling method showed significantly higher implant efficiency.
conclusionsUnder the present in vitro conditions, implant robot-assisted trephine drilling for implant-site preparation did not compromise implant precision compared with conventional serial drilling and improved implant efficiency. In addition, it may offer the practical advantage of harvesting autogenous bone material.
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.