Effect of the number and distribution of fiducial markers on the accuracy of robot-guided implant surgery in edentulous mandibular arches: An in vitro study

Robot-assisted surgery for dental implant placement: A narrative review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the current status and accuracy of robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) applications by examining the associated clinical and experimental outcomes.

DATA AND SOURCES

PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies published between January 2000 and November 2023, and focusing on robotic CAIS in dental implant surgery. All search results were then manually reviewed to identify only the pertinent articles. Only in vitro and clinical studies were included in this narrative review, with implant placement accuracy considered the main outcome.

RESULT

Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 21 studies (with 1085 implant sites); of them, 8 were clinical studies, 12 were in vitro studies, and 1 included both an in vitro study and a case series. The ranges of the mean implant shoulder, apical, and angular deviations were respectively 0.43-1.04 mm, 0.53-1.06 mm, and 0.77°-3.77° in the clinical studies and 0.23-1.04 mm, 0.24-2.13 mm, and 0.43°-3.78° in the in vitro studies, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of robotic CAIS in dental implant procedures appears to be within the clinically acceptable ranges. However, further relevant clinical trials validating the existing evidence are needed.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Robotic CAIS can achieve clinically acceptable implant placement accuracy. This innovative technology may improve the precision and success rates of dental implant procedures, with benefit for surgeons and patients.

Accuracy analysis of robotic-assisted immediate implant placement: A retrospective case series

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of a robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS) for immediate implant placement.

METHODS

Patients requiring immediate implant placement in the maxillary anterior region were enrolled for r-CAIS. Before surgery, the patients underwent a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan with a positioning marker. Virtual implant placement position and drilling sequences were planned. Following spatial registration and calibration, the implants were placed with the robotic system under supervision. A postoperative CBCT was taken to control the actual implant positions. The DICOM data of the virtually planned and the actually placed implant were superimposed and registered through the accuracy verification software of the robotic system. The accuracy was calculated automatically. The deviation at the mesial-distal, labial-palatal, and apico-coronal directions were recorded.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients with 20 implants were included. No adverse surgical events or postoperative complications were reported. The global platform, apex, and angular deviation were 0.75 ± 0.20 mm (95 % CI: 0.65 to 0.84 mm), 0.70 ± 0.27 mm (95 % CI: 0.57 to 0.82 mm), and 1.17 ± 0.73° (95 % CI: 0.83 to 1.51°), respectively. Moreover, the vertical platform and apex deviation were 0.50 ± 0.31 mm, (95 % CI: 0.35 to 0.64 mm) and 0.48 ± 0.32 mm, (95 % CI: 0.33 to 0.63 mm), respectively. All the placed implant positions were further labial and apical than the planned ones, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

High accuracy of immediate implant placement was achieved with the robotic system.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Our study provided evidence to support the potential of the robotic system in implant placement, even in challenging scenarios.

Accuracy of flapless surgery using an autonomous robotic system in full-arch immediate implant restoration: A case series

OBJECTIVES

This observational study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS) for full-arch immediate restoration and to analyse possible factors contributing to deviations.

METHODS

Three edentulous patients (five arches) underwent r-CAIS. Osteotomies were performed using an autonomous robot under the surgeon's supervision, and implant placement was performed in a freehand or robotic manner. Prefabricated provisional prostheses were delivered immediately after surgery. Postoperative cone beam computed tomography scans were performed to assess the deviations between the planned and placed implants. Statistics were compared with deviations of s-CAIS outlined in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A sum of 28 implants were used. The mean global coronal and apical deviations measured 0.91 ± 0.43 mm and 1.01 ± 0.45 mm, respectively, and the mean angular deviation measured 1.21 ± 1.24 º. The r-CAIS showed significantly better precision than the s-CAIS in full-arch cases (P < 0.001). The implants inserted using the robotic arm exhibited fewer deviations than those placed in the freehand manner. Eighty percent of prefabricated provisional prostheses were successfully delivered.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the present study, our data suggest that autonomous r-CAIS is a feasible approach for simultaneous immediate restoration in edentulous patients, showing better accuracy than s-CAIS. Further large-scale studies are necessary to verify the advantages and disadvantages of this novel technique and to explore possible factors that influence its accuracy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Autonomous r-CAIS can provide clinically acceptable implant placement accuracy in edentulous patients, significantly surpassing s-CAIS. This level of accuracy may represent a viable therapeutic approach for simultaneous immediate full-arch restoration.

Accuracy of robotic surgery for dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically analyze the accuracy of robotic surgery for dental implant placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched on October 25, 2023. Model studies or clinical studies reporting the accuracy of robotic surgery for dental implant placement among patients with missing or hopeless teeth were included. Risks of bias in clinical studies were assessed. Meta-analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

Data from 8 clinical studies reporting on 109 patients and 242 implants and 13 preclinical studies were included. Positional accuracy was measured by comparing the implant plan in presurgery CBCT and the actual implant position in postsurgery CBCT. For clinical studies, the pooled (95% confidence interval) platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation were 0.68 (0.57, 0.79) mm, 0.67 (0.58, 0.75) mm, and 1.69 (1.25, 2.12)°, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the accuracy of implants placed in partially or fully edentulous patients. For model studies, the pooled platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation were 0.72 (0.58, 0.86) mm, 0.90 (0.74, 1.06) mm, and 1.46 (1.22, 1.70)°, respectively. No adverse event was reported.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitation of the present systematic review, robotic surgery for dental implant placement showed suitable implant positional accuracy and had no reported obvious harm. Both robotic systems and clinical studies on robotic surgery for dental implant placement should be further developed.

The evolution of robotics: research and application progress of dental implant robotic systems

The use of robots to augment human capabilities and assist in work has long been an aspiration. Robotics has been developing since the 1960s when the first industrial robot was introduced. As technology has advanced, robotic-assisted surgery has shown numerous advantages, including more precision, efficiency, minimal invasiveness, and safety than is possible with conventional techniques, which are research hotspots and cutting-edge trends. This article reviewed the history of medical robot development and seminal research papers about current research progress. Taking the autonomous dental implant robotic system as an example, the advantages and prospects of medical robotic systems would be discussed which would provide a reference for future research.

In vitro and in vivo accuracy of autonomous robotic vs. fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of autonomous robotic and fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) performed on models and patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was divided into in vitro and in vivo sections. In vitro, 80 operators were assigned to two groups randomly. Forty operators performed forty autonomous robotic implant (ARI group) surgeries and the remaining forty operators carried out forty fully guided sCAIS (FGI group) surgeries on maxillary models, respectively. Each operator placed an implant in one maxillary model. In vivo, 60 patients with 113 implants from 2019 to 2023 (ARI group: 32 patients, 58 implants; FGI group: 28 patients, 55 implants) receiving implant surgeries were incorporated in this retrospective research. The preoperative and postoperative cone beam computer tomographs (CBCTs) were utilized to estimate the linear deviations and angular deviations in two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) space. The Pearson's chi-square test, Shapiro-Wilk test, Student's t test, Mann-Whitney U test and mixed models were applied, and p <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

In vitro, a total of 80 implants were enrolled and significant differences were found between the two groups (p < 0.001): The 3D deviation at the platform of ARI and FGI group was 0.58 ± 0.60 mm and 1.50 ± 1.46 mm, respectively, at the apex was 0.58 ± 0.60 mm and 1.78 ± 1.35 mm, respectively, and angle was 1.01 ± 0.87° and 2.93 ± 1.59°, respectively. Also, except for mesiodistal deviation at the implant platform, the rest linear and angular deviations in the ARI group were significantly lower than those in the FGI group in 2D space (p < 0.001). In vivo, a significantly lower mean of angular deviation (0.95 ± 0.50°, p < 0.001) and the linear deviation at both platform (0.45 ± 0.28 mm, p < 0.001) and apex (0.47 ± 0.28 mm, p < 0.001) were observed in ARI group when compared to the FGI group (4.31 ± 2.60°; 1.45 ± 1.27 mm; 1.77 ± 1.14 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of autonomous robotic technology showed significantly higher accuracy than the fully guided sCAIS.

Effect of implant shape and length on the accuracy of robot-assisted immediate implant surgery: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the accuracy of immediate implant placement of cylindrical implants (CI) and tapered implants (TI) of different lengths using a robotic dental implant system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CI and TI of three lengths (8, 10, and 12 mm) each were digitally planned and placed in a three-dimensional printed extraction socket model under robotic guidance. There were six groups with three samples in each group, resulting in a total of 18 samples. Implant angular deviation, platform point deviation (total, lateral, depth), and implant apical point deviation (total, lateral, depth) were recorded and compared between the different groups.

RESULTS

The angular deviations for CI 8 mm, CI 10 mm, CI 12 mm, TI 8 mm, TI 10 mm, and TI 12 mm were 1.32° ± 0.19°, 1.03° ± 0.56°, 1.31° ± 0.38°, 1.27° ± 0.64°, 1.10° ± 0.43° and 1.05° ± 0.45°, respectively. The total deviations of platform and apical points for CI 8 mm, CI 10 mm, CI 12 mm, TI 8 mm, TI 10 mm, and TI 12 mm were 0.79 ± 0.18 mm, 0.77 ± 0.33 mm; 0.64 ± 0.21 mm, 0.55 ± 0.17 mm; 0.64 ± 0.37 mm, 0.65 ± 0.34 mm; 0.68 ± 0.26 mm, 0.71 ± 0.20 mm; 0.70 ± 0.12 mm, 0.66 ± 0.23 mm; and 0.71 ± 0.15 mm, 0.77 ± 0.29 mm, respectively, and had no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of this study, acceptable accuracy can be achieved for both TI and CI using robotic systems. Our study demonstrated that the implant shape and length did not affect the accuracy of immediate implant placement under robotic guidance in vitro. However, further trials are required to confirm their efficacy in clinical practice.

Accuracy assessment of robot-assisted implant surgery in dentistry: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The systematic assessment of accuracy of robot-assisted implant surgery is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy of robot-assisted implant surgery and compare it with computer-aided implant surgery in partially and completely edentulous patients and human phantoms.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The studies were selected from ScienceDirect, Web of science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and CNKI databases. The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated with the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. The mean and standard deviation of global coronal, apical, and angular deviations of implants were the primary outcome. Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the robot-assisted implant surgery and compare it with computer-aided implant surgery in dental implantation (α=.05).

RESULTS

Eleven in vitro studies with 809 implants and 10 clinical studies with 257 implants were included. For the in vitro studies, the mean global coronal, apical, and angular deviations of robot-assisted implant surgery were 0.7 mm (95% CI: 0.6 to 0.8), 0.8 mm (95% CI: 0.6 to 1.0), and 1.8 degrees (95%CI: 1.2 to 2.5), respectively. For the clinical studies, the average global coronal, apical, and angular deviations of robot-assisted implant surgery were 0.6 mm (95% CI: 0.5 to 0.8), 0.7 mm (95% CI: 0.6 to 0.8), and 1.6 degrees (95%CI: 1.1 to 2.0), respectively. For the in vitro studies, the robot-assisted implant surgery group showed significantly more decrease in global coronal deviation than the computer-assisted implant surgery group (P=.012). The robot-assisted implant surgery group offered smaller global apical deviation (P=.001) and angular deviation (P<.001) than the computer-assisted implant surgery group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot navigation is a clinically reliable method of implant placement. Significantly lower global coronal, apical, and angular deviations were observed for robot-assisted implant surgery compared with computer-assisted implant surgery in human phantoms.