Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 16, 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
Comparative analysis of dental implant placement accuracy: Semi-active robotic versus free-hand techniques: A
Fan Yang1, Jianping Chen1, Ruijue Cao1
1Center for Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Stomatology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.
Background:
Robot-assisted implant surgery has emerged as a novel digital technology, and the accuracy need further assessment.
Purpose:
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of single dental implant placement between a novel semi-active robot-assisted implant surgery (RAIS) method and the conventional free-hand implant surgery (FHIS) method through a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial.
Materials And Methods:
Patients requiring single dental implant placement were recruited and randomized into RAIS and FHIS group. Deviations at the platform, apex, and angle between the planned and final implant positions were assessed in both groups. Additionally, the evaluation of instrument and surgical complications was examined.
Results:
A total of 140 patients (median age: 35.35 ± 12.55 years; 43 males, 97 females) with 140 implants from four different research centers were included, with 70 patients (70 implants) in the RAIS group and 70 patients (70 implants) in the FHIS group. In the RAIS and FHIS groups, the median platform deviations were 0.76 ± 0.36 mm and 1.48 ± 0.93 mm, respectively (p < 0.001); median apex deviations were 0.85 ± 0.48 mm and 2.14 ± 1.25 mm, respectively (p < 0.001); and median angular deviations were 2.05 ± 1.33° and 7.36 ± 4.67°, respectively (p < 0.001). Similar significant difference also presented between RAIS and FHIS group in platform vertical/horizontal deviation, apex vertical/horizontal deviation. Additionally, implants with self-tapping characteristics exhibited significantly larger deviations compared with those without self-tapping characteristics in the RAIS group. Both RAIS and FHIS methods demonstrated comparable morbidity and safety pre- and post-operation.
Conclusions:
The results indicated that the RAIS method demonstrated superior accuracy in single dental implant placement compared with the FHIS method. Specifically, RAIS exhibited significantly smaller deviations in platform, apex, and angular positions, as well as platform and apex vertical/horizontal deviations. This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization. https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=195045.
