Robotic Surgery Achieves Highest Positional Accuracy in Dental Implants

Study at a glance:

• Journal:  Journal of Dental Research, 2024

• Population: 45 patients with a missing premolar or molar tooth

• Method: Randomized controlled trial comparing robotic surgery (RS), dynamic navigation (DN), and 3D-printed static guide (SG) for implant placement

• Key Finding: RS achieved the most accurate implant positioning, while all three methods showed uneventful healing and acceptable patient-reported outcomes

Summary:
This RCT evaluated implant placement accuracy and clinical outcomes using robotic surgery (RS), dynamic navigation (DN), and 3D-printed static guides (SG). Patients were randomized into RS (n=15), DN (n=14), or SG (n=13) groups. Primary outcomes included positional accuracy: RS showed mean global platform, apex, and angular deviations of 1.1 ± 0.4 mm, 1.5 ± 0.6 mm, and 4.7° ± 2.5°, respectively, outperforming DN and SG. RS had significantly smaller mesial-distal deviations compared to SG (P<0.05). Surgery was fastest with SG (P<0.001), correlating with better early recovery at 3 days. Surgeon-reported access was easiest with DN. No significant differences were found in soft tissue microcirculation or oxygen saturation at any time point. Patient-reported outcomes were comparable, except SG patients reported better oral health-related quality of life at 3 days. Overall, all approaches had safe wound healing, and each had distinct cost-benefit profiles. Future studies with larger samples and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness.

Takeaway:
Robotic-assisted dental implant placement offers near-zero systematic 3D positional error, making it the most precise method among guided approaches, with comparable patient outcomes and safety across all techniques.

Source: Shi JY, Zhang Y, Li X, Wang Y. Comparison of implant precision with robots, navigation, or static guides: A randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res. 2025;104(1):45-52. doi:10.1177/00220345241285566. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220345241285566