Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 1, 2026

Guided Endodontics: Three-Dimensional Planning and Template-Aided Preparation of Endodontic Access Cavities
Published on: May 24, 2022
[Establishment and evaluation of path planning strategy and execution methods for posterior tooth preparation using
1Digital Dentistry Center, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Xi'an 710032, China.
Abstract:
Objective: To establish two path-planning strategies and execution modes for posterior tooth preparation and to evaluate their feasibility preparation accuracy, and efficiency using an autonomous oral surgical robot, so as to provide a reference for the clinical application of autonomous oral surgical robots in tooth preparation. Methods: Twenty three-dimensinal (3D)-printed resin standard mandibular partial dentition models (teeth 35-37) were allocated to an experimental group (n=10) and a control group (n=10). A full-crown preparation path-planning strategy for tooth 36 was established in the software. The experimental group adopted a feature-guided stepwise removal preparation strategy, whereas the control group adopted an equal-section layered milling preparation strategy. The robot performed tooth preparation on the 3D-printed resin standard mandibular partial dentition models fixed on the experimental bench, and the preparation time was recorded. After preparation, the models were three-dimensionally scanned and registered to the ideal prepared tooth model planned in the software. A 3D comparison between the actual prepared tooth and the planned preparation was performed to assess 3D deviation and the percentage of the actual removed volume (the designed value was 37.3%). Results: Robotic tooth preparation was successfully completed for all models in both groups. The 3D deviation in the experimental group was (0.13±0.02) mm, significantly smaller than that in the control group (0.80±0.04) mm (t=47.37, P<0.05). With an identical designed removal amount of 37.3%, the actual removed volume percentage in the experimental group [(39.32±1.18)%] was closer to the designed value and significantly higher than that in the control group [(23.86±1.92)%] (t=21.70, P<0.05). The preparation time was (350.6±7.5) s in the experimental group, which was significantly shorter than that in the control group [(1 390.6±47.5) s] (t=68.34, P<0.05). Conclusions: Using an autonomous oral surgical robot, posterior tooth preparation could be completed with both path-planning strategies and execution modes. However, the feature-guided stepwise removal preparation strategy was superior to the equal-section layered milling preparation strategy in both preparation accuracy and efficiency.

