Comparison of Accuracy and Systematic Precision Between Autonomous Dental Robot and Static Guide: A Retrospective Study DOI
Na Chen, Yuanyuan Wang,

Huawei Zou

и другие.

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Год журнала: 2025, Номер 27(3)

Опубликована: Июнь 1, 2025

ABSTRACT Objective This study aimed to compare the implant placement accuracy and systematic precision between Robotic‐Assisted Implant Surgery (RAIS) Fully Guided Static Computer‐Assisted surgery (sCAIS), as well explore factors influencing accuracy. Materials Methods Patients who underwent digital guided October 2022 July 2024 were included in this study. The patients divided into RAIS sCAIS groups. Post‐operative CBCT scans performed measure three‐dimensional (3D) deviations overlap rate (OR) of each implant. differences 3D OR two CAIS methods analyzed, along with that could impact accuracy, such anterior versus posterior sites, maxilla mandible, bone defects, morphology, free‐end sites. Results 254 enrolled, 125 receiving 227 implants group 129 group. demonstrated significantly better performance than coronal global deviation (0.69 [0.52] mm vs. 0.97 [0.64] mm), apical (0.75 [0.57] 1.40 [0.82] angular (1.51 [1.43]° 3.44 [2.78]°), (80 [17]% 64 [20]%) ( p < 0.001). There no significant groups horizontal mesiodistal at nor buccolingual Conclusion In most edentulous cases, assisted by system was higher system. control Coronal (mesiodistal) is comparable RAIS. Additionally, precision.

Язык: Английский

Current Status and Future Perspectives of Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Surgery DOI
Shuang Huang, Zhongli Wang, Miaomiao Li

и другие.

International Dental Journal, Год журнала: 2025, Номер 75(3), С. 1608 - 1620

Опубликована: Март 26, 2025

Язык: Английский

Процитировано

1
Accuracy and operation procedure of robotic computer-aided implant surgery DOI Creative Commons

Yitian Liu,

Qingqing Zheng,

Zonghe Xu

и другие.

Scientific Reports, Год журнала: 2025, Номер 15(1)

Опубликована: Янв. 2, 2025

This study assessed the accuracy of robotic computer-aided implant surgery (rCAIS) in partially edentulous patients using a standard operation procedure. Patients who underwent placement surgeries system under procedure were recruited. Deviations dental implants calculated after superimposition preoperative and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. The possible effects regions on these deviations investigated. A total 30 participants enrolled 44 inserted. median (25th-75th percentile) global coronal deviation, apical angular deviation 0.62 mm (0.46–1.00), (0.49–1.01) 1.16 (0.69–1.69) °, respectively. jaw was factor lateral coronal, vertical (P < 0.05). Both greater for immediate placements than delayed dimensions significantly affected These results indicate that rCAIS based is safe accurate patients. However, there remains need to optimize systems simplify workflow improve their ability recognize respond complex bone structures. Further clinical studies should also focus comparing long-term success rate related complications with traditional approaches.

Язык: Английский

Процитировано

1
Accuracy of robotic computer-assisted implant surgery in clinical studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis DOI Creative Commons

Zixin Luo,

An Li, Alexey Unkovskiy

и другие.

BMC Oral Health, Год журнала: 2025, Номер 25(1)

Опубликована: Апрель 11, 2025

To analyze the accuracy of robotic system in clinical studies and assess potential factors that might affect implant placement. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register Controlled Trials were used to search for published from August 2014 till October 2024. Studies on computer-assisted surgery (R-CAIS) identified. Furthermore, manual searches performed selected journals. Only included. Subgroup analysis was based robot autonomy, different dentitions, working principle camera. Sixteen met inclusion criteria, evaluating 908 implants. The meta-analysis showed average global platform deviation, apex angular deviation 0.69 mm (95% CI: 0.61‒0.77, I2 = 94%), 0.72 0.64‒0.79, 93%), 1.62° 1.34°‒1.89°, 96%), respectively. In subgroup analysis, Meta-generic inverse variance observed statistically significant differences between robots using infrared mechanical tracking (p < 0.01), as well those visible light 0.01). No autonomous semi-active systems dentitions. R-CAIS technology demonstrated a high level accuracy. However, further large-scale, multi-center, randomized, controlled trials are necessary compare placement with other techniques, additional influencing must be explored.

Язык: Английский

Процитировано

0
Comparison of Accuracy and Systematic Precision Between Autonomous Dental Robot and Static Guide: A Retrospective Study DOI
Na Chen, Yuanyuan Wang,

Huawei Zou

и другие.

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Год журнала: 2025, Номер 27(3)

Опубликована: Июнь 1, 2025

ABSTRACT Objective This study aimed to compare the implant placement accuracy and systematic precision between Robotic‐Assisted Implant Surgery (RAIS) Fully Guided Static Computer‐Assisted surgery (sCAIS), as well explore factors influencing accuracy. Materials Methods Patients who underwent digital guided October 2022 July 2024 were included in this study. The patients divided into RAIS sCAIS groups. Post‐operative CBCT scans performed measure three‐dimensional (3D) deviations overlap rate (OR) of each implant. differences 3D OR two CAIS methods analyzed, along with that could impact accuracy, such anterior versus posterior sites, maxilla mandible, bone defects, morphology, free‐end sites. Results 254 enrolled, 125 receiving 227 implants group 129 group. demonstrated significantly better performance than coronal global deviation (0.69 [0.52] mm vs. 0.97 [0.64] mm), apical (0.75 [0.57] 1.40 [0.82] angular (1.51 [1.43]° 3.44 [2.78]°), (80 [17]% 64 [20]%) ( p < 0.001). There no significant groups horizontal mesiodistal at nor buccolingual Conclusion In most edentulous cases, assisted by system was higher system. control Coronal (mesiodistal) is comparable RAIS. Additionally, precision.

Язык: Английский

Процитировано

0