ArticleMaedica2026
Robotic Guidance and Optical Navigation for Precision Implant Placement: a Prospective Comparative Clinical Study.
Article in Maedica, 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
Background: Accurate three-dimensional implant positioning is essential for prosthetically driven implant dentistry and for reducing the risk of injury to adjacent anatomical structures. Methods: This prospective randomized comparative study included 180 adults requiring single delayed implant placement, who were assigned to robotic-guided (RG) surgery (n=60), optical dynamic navigation-guided (ONG) surgery (n=60), or conventional freehand (CF) surgery (n=60) groups. Preoperative and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) datasets were superimposed to measure angular, apical, coronal and depth deviations between planned and actual implant positions. Secondary outcomes included operative time, postoperative pain, six-month satisfaction and early complications. Results: The final analysis included 176 patients. The mean angular deviation was the lowest in the RG group (1.82°±0.64°), followed by ONG (2.34°±0.89°) and CF groups (4.87°±1.53°; p<0.001). Apical and coronal deviations showed the same pattern. Robotic-guided surgery required longer surgical time than ONG and CF, but early complications were less frequent in RG (3.4%) and ONG (6.8%) than CF (15.5%; p=0.042). Conclusion: Within the limitations of a single-center study and short follow-up, RG achieved the highest placement accuracy, while dynamic optical navigation provided clinically meaningful improvement over freehand placement. Long-term survival, prosthetic outcomes and cost-effectiveness require further evaluation.
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.