Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 18, 2026
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
Comparison of implant placement deviation between dynamic- and robotic-assisted implant surgery for complete arch
Guanyu Su1, Baoxin Tao2, Minjie Zhuang3
1Graduate student, Second Dental Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, National Center for Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, PR China.
Statement Of Problem:
Although dynamic- and robotic-assisted systems have enhanced control over implant placement, evidence comparing their performance for complete arch implant-supported prosthesis procedures, especially with tilted implants, is lacking.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the implant placement deviations of dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (dCAIS) and robotic-assisted implant surgery (RAIS) in a complete arch implant-supported prosthesis protocol by focusing on deviations between planned and actual implant positions.
Material And Methods:
A total of 512 implants were placed in 64 maxillary and 64 mandibular edentulous resin models, with 256 implants per group. Each model received 2 anterior axial and 2 posterior tilted implants. Postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were superimposed with preoperative plans to measure entry, exit, and angular deviations. Linear mixed-effects models (LMMs) were used for analysis, with the phantom as a random intercept and jaw type, implant angulation, and side as fixed effects (α=.05).
Results:
Linear mixed model analysis identified a significant effect of surgery type on angular deviation (P<.001). Side significantly affected exit (P=.025) and angular deviation (P=.002). Significant interactions were observed between surgery type and implant axial type for entry deviation (P=.011) and between surgery type and side for angular deviation (P=.027). Post hoc analysis revealed a significant difference in entry deviation between axial and tilted implants within the dCAIS group (P=.003) and a side-related difference in angular deviation within the RAIS group (P=.005).
Conclusions:
RAIS showed reduced deviations, especially for tilted implants, suggesting its potential to enhance control in complete arch implant-supported prostheses.
