Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42811106›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2026

Robotic surgery vs dynamic navigation: does greater accuracy make the difference in implant dentistry?

Paolo Nava, Andrea Laureti, Hamoun Sabri

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Paolo NavaDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-6177-3000
Andrea LauretiDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Hamoun SabriDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. hsabri@Umich.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6581-2104

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

a commentary onWei H, Shu Z, Tian M, Ge Y, Li D. The Accuracy of Autonomous Robotic Surgery vs. Dynamic Navigation in Implant Placement: An Open-Label, Double-Arm, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2025;36:1486 -97

designDouble-arm, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the accuracy and early clinical outcomes of autonomous robotic surgery and dynamic navigation for single-tooth implant placement. Both systems used the same optical tracking technology, allowing a more standardized comparison between the two computer-assisted surgical approaches. CASE SELECTION: Forty healthy adult patients requiring single implant-supported restoration were included and randomly allocated to either the autonomous robotic surgery group or the dynamic navigation group. Eligible patients presented with adequate soft tissue dimensions, sufficient bone volume, good oral hygiene, and no limitation in mouth opening. Patients with systemic contraindications to implant surgery, conditions or treatments affecting osseointegration, pregnancy or nursing status, recent head and neck radiotherapy, or inability to comply with follow-up were excluded. DATA ANALYSIS: Implant placement accuracy was assessed by superimposing preoperative and postoperative CBCT scans. The primary outcomes were coronal, apical, and angular deviations between planned and actual implant positions. Secondary outcomes included surgical time, postoperative pain, edema, complications, and early implant success. Between-group comparisons were performed using parametric or non-parametric tests according to data distribution, with additional regression analysis to adjust for baseline variables.

resultsAutonomous robotic surgery showed significantly lower angular deviation than dynamic navigation. No statistically significant differences were observed for coronal or apical deviations. Robotic procedures required significantly longer surgical time than dynamic navigation. Postoperative pain, edema, complications, and early implant success were comparable between groups, with all implants meeting success criteria after 3 months of healing.

conclusionsAutonomous robotic surgery may provide superior angular accuracy compared with dynamic navigation when both systems use the same optical tracking technology. However, this advantage was not accompanied by significant improvements in linear accuracy or early clinical outcomes, and robotic surgery required longer operative time. These findings support the potential of autonomous robotic systems for precise implant placement, while emphasizing the need for larger clinical trials, longer follow-up, and evaluation in more complex scenarios before broad clinical superiority can be established.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.