ReviewThe Japanese dental science review2026
Accuracy of robotic systems in dental implant placement with clinical subgroup analyses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in The Japanese dental science review, 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
Robotic systems are increasingly integrated into dental implantology, yet their accuracy and clinical reliability remain under evaluation. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized evidence on the accuracy of robot-assisted dental implant placement and explored the influence of clinical variations on outcomes. Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase (January 2015-September 2025) identified 39 clinical studies involving 1227 patients and 2066 implants. Risk of bias was assessed using validated tools for randomized, non-randomized, and observational studies. Pooled estimates revealed mean deviations of 0.68 mm coronally (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.74), 0.72 mm apically (95% CI: 0.66-0.79), and 1.60° angularly (95% CI: 1.40-1.81). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that autonomy level significantly influenced accuracy, with task-autonomous and semi-autonomous systems outperforming haptic-guided approaches. Conversely, edentulous span, implant location, and study design did not significantly affect outcomes. Robotic systems consistently achieved superior accuracy over previously reported computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) methods, with deviations well within clinically accepted limits. Higher autonomy levels were associated with increased accuracy across diverse clinical scenarios. These findings highlight the potential role of robotic CAIS for managing complex cases and full-arch rehabilitations, providing enhanced predictability and safety. High-quality randomized control trials are required to further validate long-term outcomes.
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.