Trial reportClinical oral implants research2026
Accuracy, Efficiency, and Patient- and Surgeon-Reported Outcomes of Static Versus Robotic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06059573 (The Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement Using Robotic System-assisted Surgery and Freehand Surgery), which is not on this 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.
The Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement Using Robotic System-assisted Surgery and Freehand Surgery: a Randomized Clinical Trial
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess implant placement accuracy, efficiency, and patient- and surgeon-reported outcomes of static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) and robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (rCAIS) in single-tooth posterior edentulism.
methodsIn this randomized clinical trial, 36 patients requiring posterior single-tooth implant restoration were allocated to sCAIS (n = 18) or rCAIS (n = 18). Preoperative planning for all patients was performed using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. The DICOM datasets were imported into planning software to conduct virtual implant planning in accordance with prosthetic-driven and bone-supported principles. Implant placement accuracy was assessed by superimposing CBCT-based preoperative planning with postoperative cone beam computed tomography, measuring linear (coronal, apical) and angular deviations. Surgery time and patient-reported experiences (anxiety, intraoperative discomfort, postoperative pain) and surgeon-reported feedback were recorded for each group.
resultsThe rCAIS group demonstrated significantly superior accuracy, with lower coronal (0.70 ± 0.44 mm vs. 1.02 ± 0.37 mm, p = 0.018), apical (0.75 ± 0.41 mm vs. 1.11 ± 0.40 mm, p = 0.009), and angular deviations (1.20° ± 0.44° vs. 2.38° ± 1.03°, p < 0.001). However, rCAIS required significantly longer surgery time (49.53 ± 12.96 min vs. 24.38 ± 6.51 min, p < 0.001) and resulted in greater intraoperative patient discomfort (3.00 ± 1.60 vs. 1.67 ± 1.87, p = 0.019). Surgeons reported easier access to the surgery site with sCAIS (p < 0.01), whereas the complexity of the surgical procedure and primary implant stability of both groups were comparable.
conclusionThe rCAIS provides superior implant placement accuracy compared to sCAIS but is associated with longer procedures and increased patient discomfort. The sCAIS offers reliable implant placement with simpler operation and greater adaptability. Clinical decision-making should balance the benefits of accuracy with patient comfort, efficiency, and resource considerations.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06059573) and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300078795).
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.