Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 1, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Accuracy analysis of robotic-assisted immediate implant placement: A retrospective case series
Ningbo Zhao1, Liangzhi Du2, Chengpeng Lv2
1Key Laboratory of Shaanxi Province for Craniofacial Precision Medicine Research, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, PR China; Clinical Research Center of Shaanxi Province for Dental and Maxillofacial Disease, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, PR China; Department of Implant Dentistry, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, PR China.
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.
