Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 Apr 11;25(1):540.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-05837-2.

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

Zixin Luo #  1   2 , An Li #  3 , Alexey Unkovskiy  4   5 , Jiang Li  1   2 , Florian Beuer  4 , Zhe Wu  6   7 , Ping Li  8   9
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Zixin Luo et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Objectives: To analyze the accuracy of the robotic system in clinical studies and assess potential factors that might affect the accuracy of robotic implant placement.

Materials and methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were used to search for studies published from August 2014 till October 2024. Studies on robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (R-CAIS) were identified. Furthermore, manual searches were performed for selected journals. Only clinical studies were included. Subgroup analysis was performed based on robot autonomy, different dentitions, and the working principle of the camera.

Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, evaluating 908 implants. The meta-analysis of accuracy showed that the average global platform deviation, global apex deviation, and angular deviation were 0.69 mm (95% CI: 0.61‒0.77, I2 = 94%), 0.72 mm (95% CI: 0.64‒0.79, I2 = 93%), and 1.62° (95% CI: 1.34°‒1.89°, I2 = 96%), respectively. In subgroup analysis, Meta-generic inverse variance analysis observed statistically significant differences in global platform deviation and apex deviation between robots using infrared and mechanical tracking (p < 0.01), as well as between those using visible light and mechanical tracking (p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed between autonomous and semi-active systems and different dentitions.

Conclusion: The R-CAIS technology demonstrated a high level of accuracy. However, further large-scale, multi-center, randomized, controlled clinical trials are necessary to compare robotic implant placement with other techniques, and the additional factors influencing robotic implant placement must be explored.

Keywords: Accuracy; Computer-assisted implant surgery; Dental implant; Robot-assisted surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects concluded that no ethical approval was required for data collection for this purpose. Furthermore, The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024590506). Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Accuracy parameters. (a) Angular deviation. (b) Global platform deviation. (c) Global apex deviation. The image was created with BioRender.com
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Search flow diagram
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plots of (a) global platform deviation, (b) global apex deviation, and (c) angular deviation. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated in this study
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plots ofautonomous/semi-active. (a) global platform deviation, (b) global apex deviation, (c) angular deviation. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated in this study
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plots of state of dentition. (a) global platform deviation, (b) global apex deviation, (c) angular deviation
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest plots of the working principle of camera. (a) global platform deviation, (b) global apex deviation, (c) angular deviation. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated in this study
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Buser D, Halbritter S, Hart C, Bornstein MM, Grütter L, Chappuis V, et al. Early implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration following single-tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: 12-month results of a prospective study with 20 consecutive patients. J Periodontol. 2009;80:152–62. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Clark D, Barbu H, Lorean A, Mijiritsky E, Levin L. Incidental findings of implant complications on postimplantation CBCTs: A cross-sectional study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19:776–82. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen J, Wang Y, Bai Y, Chen Y, Chen Z, Yan Q et al. Accuracy, safety, and efficiency in Robotic-Assisted vs. Freehand dental implant surgery: A 6-Month Follow-Up randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2025. - PubMed
    1. Ahmad P, Alam MK, Aldajani A, Alahmari A, Alanazi A, Stoddart M et al. Dental Robotics: A Disruptive Technology. Sensors (Basel). 2021;21. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chandran S, Sers L, Picciocchi G, Luongo F, Lerner H, Engelschalk M, et al. Guided implant surgery with R2Gate®: A multicenter retrospective clinical study with 1 year of follow-up. J Dent. 2022;127:104349. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources