Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 13, 2026
Single-Port Robotic-assisted Transaxillary Breast-conserving Surgery: A Prospective, Single-arm, Non-randomized Phase IIa Clinical Trial
Published on: August 19, 2025
Clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes of robotic-assisted versus static computer-assisted implant
Ye-Huai Wu1, Wei Chen1, Wei Li2
1Department of Implant Dentistry, Implant and Restorative Dentistry Center, Hospital of Stomatology, Zhongshan City, 528400, China.
Objectives:
To compare the clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes of dental implant placement using static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) versus a robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) system over a 12-month follow-up period.
Materials And Methods:
This retrospective comparative study was designed as an exploratory analysis of clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes. It included 36 patients receiving 103 implants, allocated to either the sCAIS group (14 patients, 54 implants) or the RAS group (22 patients, 49 implants). Assessments included implant placement accuracy, marginal bone loss (MBL) at 6 and 12 months, pocket depth and bleeding on probe for peri-implant soft tissue health, implant survival/success rates, and patient-reported outcomes via the OHIP-14 questionnaire and a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for intraoperative satisfaction.
Results:
The RAS group demonstrated significantly higher placement accuracy, with lower deviations in vertical and horizontal dimensions at both the implant shoulder and apex (all p < 0.05). While MBL was comparable at 6 months, at the 12-month follow-up the RAS group showed significantly less bone loss on the mesial (p = 0.0117), distal (p = 0.0114), and lingual/palatal aspects (p = 0.0060). Peri-implant soft tissue health and cumulative success rates (98.1% for sCAIS vs. 100% for RAS) were not significantly different. Patients reported significantly higher intraoperative satisfaction with sCAIS (p < 0.001), but the RAS group reported a significantly better postoperative quality of life (lower OHIP-14 scores, p = 0.0010).
Conclusion:
While both robotic and static guided systems yield high clinical success rates, robotic-assisted surgery provided greater placement accuracy and suggested a potential for better long-term preservation of peri-implant bone. These preliminary findings, which require confirmation through larger prospective studies, came at the cost of lower intraoperative satisfaction, even as patients reported a better postoperative quality of life.
