Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 29, 2026
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Impact of Implant Site and Bone Quality on the Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Implant Placement: A Retrospective Study
Jianfei Liang1,2,3, Jiayin Li1,2,3, Ningbo Zhao1,2,3
1Key Laboratory of Shaanxi Province for Craniofacial Precision Medicine Research, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China, xjtu.edu.cn.
Background:
Robot-assisted surgery is widely used in implant dentistry; however, the specific effects of implant site and bone quality on its accuracy require further elucidation.
Objective:
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of implant site and bone quality on the accuracy of a single robotic-assisted implant placement method.
Methods:
This retrospective analysis included 83 patients who received 173 implants via a robot-assisted system. Implants were categorized by site into upper-anterior (UA), upper-posterior (UP), lower-anterior (LA), and lower-posterior (LP) regions and by bone quality into Type I-II and Type III-IV. Postoperative accuracy was assessed by comparing the planned versus actual implant positions, measuring lateral coronal deviation (LCD), vertical coronal deviation (VCD), and global coronal deviation (GCD); lateral apical deviation (LAD), vertical apical deviation (VAD), and global apical deviation (GAD); and angular deviation (AD).
Results:
When analyzed by implant site, the UA region demonstrated significantly larger vertical deviations (VCD and VAD) compared to the LP region (VCD: 0.99 ± 0.46 mm vs. 0.25 ± 0.53 mm, p < 0.05; VAD: 0.95 ± 0.46 mm vs. 0.24 ± 0.53 mm, p < 0.05). AD did not differ significantly among the various implant sites. Regarding bone quality, however, implants in Type III-IV bone exhibited significantly greater vertical deviations than those in Type I-II bone (VCD and VAD: 0.67 ± 0.56 mm vs. 0.27 ± 0.49 mm, p < 0.05). Moreover, a trend toward a larger AD was also noted in Type III-IV bone (1.53 ± 1.09° vs. 1.18 ± 0.80°).
Conclusions:
Both implant site and bone quality were found to influence the accuracy of the single robotic-assisted system.
