ArticleBMC oral health2026
Robotic technologies in prosthodontics and implantology: a scoping review of current applications and future directions.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis scoping review synthesizes current evidence on the applications, effectiveness, workflow, and limitations of robotic technologies in prosthodontics and implant dentistry, focusing on their potential to enhance precision, reproducibility, and clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search was conducted across PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Web of Science from January 2015 to May 2025, following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Studies were screened and selected based on predefined inclusion criteria, with data extracted into categories of prosthetic dentistry, implant dentistry, and robotic development stages.
resultsTwenty-one studies were included (7 prosthodontics, 14 implantology). In prosthodontics, robotic systems demonstrated high accuracy in veneer and crown preparations (errors < 0.4 mm) and automated denture arch generation (positioning accuracy 0.09 mm). Implant dentistry studies revealed robotic systems (Yomi, Remebot) outperformed static/dynamic navigation in precision, with mean angular deviations < 2.81° and coronal/apical deviations < 1 mm. Semi-active and active robots dominated implant applications, while prosthodontic robots were primarily active but less clinically advanced.
conclusionsRobotic technologies hold transformative potential for implant and prosthetic dentistry, with higher precision and workflow efficiency. However, robust clinical trials and cost-effective solutions are needed for adoption of these systems in regular clinics.
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.