Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 27, 2025
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Accuracy of an autonomous dental implant robotic system versus static guide-assisted implant surgery: A retrospective
Shasha Jia1, Guowei Wang2, Yimin Zhao3
1Post-Graduate, Department of Oral Implantology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, PR China; Post-Graduate, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Teaching and Research Section, School of Stomatology, Qingdao University, Qingdao, PR China.
Statement Of Problem:
The accuracy of implant placement is a prerequisite for prosthetically driven implant surgery and is necessary to ensure the long-term stability of dental implants. Imprecise implant position may bring difficulties for restoration, damage anatomic structures, affect peri-implant tissues, and lead to ultimate implant failure.
Purpose:
The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to compare the accuracy of implants placed with an autonomous dental implant robotic (ADIR) system with those placed with static computer assisted implant surgery (sCAIS).
Material And Methods:
Thirty-nine participants were enrolled in this retrospective study: 20 participants had received implant surgery with the ADIR system and 19 participants had implants placed with sCAIS. The preoperative plans and postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans after implant placement were matched during the study. The coronal, apical, and angular deviations were measured and analyzed. A linear regression model was established to analyze the source of deviation. MANOVA was used to compare differences in the major outcome variables (α=.05).
Results:
A total of 60 implants were placed in 39 participants (30 in each of the 2 groups). The mean ±standard deviation coronal, apical, and angular deviation of the ADIR system group and sCAIS group were 0.43 ±0.18 mm versus 1.31 ±0.62 mm (P<.001), 0.56 ±0.18 mm versus 1.47 ±0.65 mm (P<.001), and 1.48 ±0.59 degrees versus 2.42 ±1.55 degrees (P=.003), respectively. In addition, there was no significant difference in accuracy in the different implant regions (anterior, premolar, molar, maxilla, mandible) (P>.05). No complications were observed.
Conclusions:
The accuracy of the implant position using the ADIR system was significantly higher than with sCAIS, suggesting that the ADIR system can achieve minimally invasive and excellent accuracy. In addition, implant regions had no significant influence on the accuracy of implant placement. (Keywords: Robotic system, Implant surgery, Static guide, Autonomous, Accuracy).
