Accuracy of immediate dental implant placement with task-autonomous robotic system and navigation system: An in vitro study

Accuracy of dental implant placement using different dynamic navigation and robotic systems: an in vitro study

Computer-aided implant surgery has undergone continuous development in recent years. In this study, active and passive systems of dynamic navigation were divided into active dynamic navigation system group and passive dynamic navigation system group (ADG and PDG), respectively. Active, passive and semi-active implant robots were divided into active robot group, passive robot group and semi-active robot group (ARG, PRG and SRG), respectively. Each group placed two implants (FDI tooth positions 31 and 36) in a model 12 times. The accuracy of 216 implants in 108 models were analysed. The coronal deviations of ADG, PDG, ARG, PRG and SRG were 0.85 ± 0.17 mm, 1.05 ± 0.42 mm, 0.29 ± 0.15 mm, 0.40 ± 0.16 mm and 0.33 ± 0.14 mm, respectively. The apical deviations of the five groups were 1.11 ± 0.23 mm, 1.07 ± 0.38 mm, 0.29 ± 0.15 mm, 0.50 ± 0.19 mm and 0.36 ± 0.16 mm, respectively. The axial deviations of the five groups were 1.78 ± 0.73°, 1.99 ± 1.20°, 0.61 ± 0.25°, 1.04 ± 0.37° and 0.42 ± 0.18°, respectively. The coronal, apical and axial deviations of ADG were higher than those of ARG, PRG and SRG (all P < 0.001). Similarly, the coronal, apical and axial deviations of PDG were higher than those of ARG, PRG, and SRG (all P < 0.001). Dynamic and robotic computer-aided implant surgery may show good implant accuracy in vitro. However, the accuracy and stability of implant robots are higher than those of dynamic navigation systems.

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.

Development and validation of a collaborative robotic platform based on monocular vision for oral surgery: an in vitro study

PURPOSE

Surgical robots effectively improve the accuracy and safety of surgical procedures. Current optical-navigated oral surgical robots are typically developed based on binocular vision positioning systems, which are susceptible to factors including obscured visibility, limited workplace, and ambient light interference. Hence, the purpose of this study was to develop a lightweight robotic platform based on monocular vision for oral surgery that enhances the precision and efficiency of surgical procedures.

METHODS

A monocular optical positioning system (MOPS) was applied to oral surgical robots, and a semi-autonomous robotic platform was developed utilizing monocular vision. A series of vitro experiments were designed to simulate dental implant procedures to evaluate the performance of optical positioning systems and assess the robotic system accuracy. The singular configuration detection and avoidance test, the collision detection and processing test, and the drilling test under slight movement were conducted to validate the safety of the robotic system.

RESULTS

The position error and rotation error of MOPS were 0.0906 ± 0.0762 mm and 0.0158 ± 0.0069 degrees, respectively. The attitude angle of robotic arms calculated by the forward and inverse solutions was accurate. Additionally, the robot's surgical calibration point exhibited an average error of 0.42 mm, with a maximum error of 0.57 mm. Meanwhile, the robot system was capable of effectively avoiding singularities and demonstrating robust safety measures in the presence of minor patient movements and collisions during vitro experiment procedures.

CONCLUSION

The results of this in vitro study demonstrate that the accuracy of MOPS meets clinical requirements, making it a promising alternative in the field of oral surgical robots. Further studies will be planned to make the monocular vision oral robot suitable for clinical application.

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.

Autonomous robotic system for the assisted immediate placement of a maxillary anterior implant: A clinical report

Precise reproduction of the preoperatively designed 3-dimensional (3D) implant position is key to seating a prefabricated restoration and restoring esthetics. Static and dynamic computer-aided implant surgery (CAIS) based on the fusion of 3D imaging files have been used to improve implant accuracy. However, both techniques have shortcomings that can be remedied by a robotic system. This clinical report describes the immediate placement of an implant in the anterior esthetic zone by using an autonomous dental implant robotic system (ADIR).

Clinical evaluation of autonomous robotic-assisted full-arch implant surgery: A 1-year prospective clinical study

OBJECTIVES

This prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and 1-year clinical follow-up performance of dental implant placement with an autonomous dental implant robot (ADIR) system in full-arch implant surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve patients with edentulous arches or final dentition received 102 implants using the ADIR system. Global platform deviation, global apex deviation, and global angular deviation between the planned and actual implants were calculated after surgery. Data were statistically analyzed for factors including jaws, implant positions, patient sequences, implant systems, and implant length. Surgery duration was recorded. Patients were followed for 3 months and 1 year after surgery. Periodontal parameters, buccal bone thickness (BBT), and facial vertical bone wall peak (IP-FC) were recorded.

RESULTS

Among the 102 implants, the mean (SD) global platform deviation, global apex deviation, and global angular deviation were 0.53 (0.19) mm, 0.58 (0.17) mm, and 1.83 (0.82)°, respectively. The deviation differences between the mandible and maxilla did not show statistical significance (p > .05). No statistically significant differences were found for the jaws, implant positions, patient sequences, implant systems, and implant length to the deviations (p > .05). The periodontal parameters, the BBT, and IP-FC remained stable during 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The ADIR system showed excellent positional accuracy. The 1-year follow-up after full-arch implant surgery indicated that the ADIR system could achieve promising clinical performance. Additional clinical evidence is requisite to furnish guidelines for the implementation of the ADIR system in full-arch implant surgery.

Comparison of the positional accuracy of robotic guided dental implant placement with static guided and dynamic navigation systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The development of robotic computer assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS) offers advantages, but how the positional accuracy of r-CAIS compares with other forms of guided implant surgery remains unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the positional accuracy of r-CAIS and to compare the positional accuracy of r-CAIS with s-CAIS and d-CAIS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Five databases were systematically searched by 2 independent reviewers for articles published before May 2023. A manual search was also performed. Articles evaluating the positional accuracy of r-CAIS were included. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for the clinical studies, whereas the QUIN tool was used for the in vitro studies. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the positional accuracy of r-CAIS with d-CAIS.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included, with 9 in vitro studies, 4 clinical studies, and a total of 920 dental implants. A high risk of bias was noted in 6 studies and low to moderate in 7 studies. R-CAIS showed greater accuracy for the coronal, apical, and angular deviations compared with d-CAIS. (-0.17 [-0.24, 0.09], (P<.001); -0.21 [-0.36, -0.06] (P=.006), and -1.41 [-1.56, -1.26] (P<.001)) CONCLUSIONS: R-CAIS can provide improved positional accuracy compared with d-CAIS when considering coronal, apical, and angular deviations. However, evidence to compare the positional accuracy of r-CAIS with s-CAIS was insufficient. These results should be interpreted with caution because of the limited data and the bias noted in several studies.

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 Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies

Background and Objectives: The present systematic review and meta-analysis undertake a comparison of studies that examine the accuracy of robot-assisted dental implant placement in relation to static computer-assisted implant surgery (SCAIS), dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (DCAIS), and freehand procedures. This study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the precision of robot-assisted dental implant placement and its comparative efficacy in relation to other placement techniques. Methods: The guidelines recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were used to organize and compose this review. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane) were systematically searched for pertinent articles. Articles were selected following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the selected articles were performed. Results: The initial electronic search resulted in 1087 hits. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, five articles were selected for qualitative analysis, out of which three were considered for quantitative analysis. Three parameters were considered for accuracy evaluation (angular, coronal, and apical deviation). The mean angular deviation was -1.22 degrees (95% CI, -1.06--1.39), the mean coronal deviation was -0.15 mm (95% CI, -0.24--0.07), and the mean apical deviation was -0.19 mm (95% CI, -0.27--0.10). Conclusions: The robotic implant system was found to have significantly lower angular deviations and insignificantly lower coronal and apical deviations compared to DCAIS. Within the limitations of this review, it can be concluded that robot-assisted implant placement in resin models permits higher accuracy compared to DCAIS and SCAIS systems. However, due to the limited number of comparative studies with high heterogeneity, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Further research is necessary to confirm the clinical application of robotics in implant surgery.

How does dental implant macrogeometry affect primary implant stability? A narrative review

PURPOSE

The macrogeometry of a dental implant plays a decisive role in its primary stability. A larger diameter, a conical shape, and a roughened surface increase the contact area of the implant with the surrounding bone and thus improve primary stability. This is considered the basis for successful implant osseointegration that different factors, such as implant design, can influence. This narrative review aims to critically review macro-geometric features affecting the primary stability of dental implants.

METHODS

For this review, a comprehensive literature search and review of relevant studies was conducted based on formulating a research question, searching the literature using keywords and electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to search for relevant studies. These studies were screened and selected, the study quality was assessed, data were extracted, the results were summarized, and conclusions were drawn.

RESULTS

The macrogeometry of a dental implant includes its surface characteristics, size, and shape, all of which play a critical role in its primary stability. At the time of placement, the initial stability of an implant is determined by its contact area with the surrounding bone. Larger diameter and a conical shape of an implant result in a larger contact area and better primary stability. But the linear relationship between implant length and primary stability ends at 12 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors must be considered when choosing the ideal implant geometry, including local factors such as the condition of the bone and soft tissues at the implant site and systemic and patient-specific factors such as osteoporosis, diabetes, or autoimmune diseases. These factors can affect the success of the implant procedure and the long-term stability of an implant. By considering these factors, the surgeon can ensure the greatest possible therapeutic success and minimize the risk of implant failure.