Comparison of Implant Precision with Robots, Navigation, or Static Guides
- PMID: 39586816
- PMCID: PMC11667196
- DOI: 10.1177/00220345241285566
Comparison of Implant Precision with Robots, Navigation, or Static Guides
Abstract
Precise surgical positioning according to a digital plan is important for aesthetic and biologically stable dental implant restorations. This randomized controlled trial compared implant placement assisted by robotic surgery (RS), dynamic navigation (DN), or 3-dimensional printed static guide (SG). An overall 45 patients with a missing tooth in the premolar/molar region were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 groups. Implant positional accuracy (primary outcome), early wound healing, soft tissue microcirculation, patient-reported outcome measures, and surgeon preference were measured by calibrated blind examiners. One adverse event occurred in DN and RS. In RS (n = 15), the global platform, apex deviation, and angular deviations (mean ± SD) were 1.1 ± 0.4 mm, 1.5 ± 0.6 mm, and 4.7° ± 2.5°, respectively. Similarly, deviations were 1.3 ± 0.6 mm, 1.9 ± 0.9 mm, and 5.5° ± 3.5° in the DN group (n = 14) and 1.1 ± 0.6 mm, 2.0 ± 1.2 mm, and 6.2° ± 4.0° in the SG group (n = 13). Significantly smaller differential deviations (mesial-distal) at the platform and apex levels were found in the RS group than the SG group (P < 0.05). Surgery was significantly shorter with a SG (P < 0.001), and this was associated with better postoperative recovery at 3 d. The surgeon assessed DN as providing easier access to reach the surgical site. No significant differences were found upon comparing soft tissue microcirculation and oxygen saturation immediately, 1 h, or 7 d after surgery. Patient-reported outcomes were comparable in the 3 groups, except that patients in the SG group reported better oral health-related quality of life 3 d after surgery. It can be concluded that RS showed near-zero 3-dimensional systematic error in implant position, while DN and SG demonstrated a centrifugal error pattern. All 3 guided approaches had uneventful wound healing and acceptable patient-reported outcomes. The 3 groups had specific cost-benefit profiles. After additional technical developments, future trials with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods should be performed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of different guided surgical approaches.
Keywords: computer-aided design; computer-aided surgery; dental implant; randomized controlled trial; robot surgery; surgical navigation system.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: M.S. Tonetti received grant support and/or personal fees from Geistlich Pharma AG, Straumann AG, and Nobel Biocare SA, which are unrelated to the present work. The other authors declared no conflict of interest.
References
-
- Bolding SL, Reebye UN. 2022. Accuracy of haptic robotic guidance of dental implant surgery for completely edentulous arches. J Prosthet Dent. 128(4):639–647. - PubMed
-
- Chackartchi T, Romanos GE, Parkanyi L, Schwarz F, Sculean A. 2022. Reducing errors in guided implant surgery to optimize treatment outcomes. Periodontol 2000. 88(1):64–72. - PubMed
-
- Chen J, Zhuang M, Tao B, Wu Y, Ye L, Wang F. 2023. Accuracy of immediate dental implant placement with task-autonomous robotic system and navigation system: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 35(8):973–983. - PubMed
-
- Chen W, Al-Taezi KA, Chu CH, Shen Y, Wu J, Cai K, Chen P, Tang C. 2023. Accuracy of dental implant placement with a robotic system in partially edentulous patients: a prospective, single-arm clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 34(7):707–718. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous