ArticleBMC oral health2026
Accuracy of autonomous robotic computer-assisted implant surgery in edentulous patients: a retrospective exploratory case series.
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
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of robotic computer-assisted implant surgery in edentulous patients and to compare differences in accuracy between implants placed in the maxilla and mandible, as well as between anterior and posterior regions. MATERIALS AND
methodsSix patients who voluntarily underwent autonomous robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (R-CAIS) using the YaKebot system and met the eligibility criteria were included in this study. Preoperative planning data and postoperative CBCT images were imported into the robotic software system for registration to calculate deviations between the designed and actual implant positions. The primary outcomes included global deviations at the implant platform and apex, angular deviation, as well as horizontal and vertical deviations at the platform and the apex. Deviations were compared among implants placed at different anatomical locations, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.
resultsSix edentulous patients underwent R-CAIS with a total of 42 implants placed. The mean deviation at the implant platform was 0.519 ± 0.216 mm, while the mean apex deviation was 0.508 ± 0.224 mm. The mean angular deviation was 0.634 ± 0.402°, and the mean vertical deviation was 0.298 ± 0.248 mm. The results showed that global deviations at the apex, global angular deviations, and platform vertical deviations tended to be lower in the anterior region than in the posterior region. However, none of these differences reached statistical significance (all p-values > 0.05). Implants in the maxilla exhibited overall smaller deviations than those in the mandible. Notably, the buccolingual deviation at the apex was significantly lower in the maxilla than in the mandible (p = 0.021). No other significant differences were found between the two jaws (all p > 0.05). In terms of deviation direction, the implants tended to deviate toward the buccal and distal directions and were positioned slightly more superficially than designed.
conclusionsR-CAIS can achieve high accuracy in implant placement in edentulous patients, supporting its broader clinical application in complex implant rehabilitation.
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.