Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 18, 2026
Digital Hybrid Model Preparation for Virtual Planning of Reconstructive Dentoalveolar Surgical Procedures
Published on: August 5, 2021
Robot-assisted dental implant surgery: A systematic review of available clinical evidence
Ahmed Yaseen Alqutaibi1, Samer Shahadah2, Ayman Bakkari2
1Professor, Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences (Prosthodontics), College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia; and Professor, Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ibb University, Ibb, Yemen.
Statement Of Problem:
Robot-assisted systems have been increasingly introduced into dental implant surgery; however, the clinical evidence supporting their accuracy, safety, and efficiency remains fragmented.
Purpose:
To systematically synthesize the available human clinical evidence on robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS), with emphasis on accuracy, efficiency, safety, and reported clinical challenges.
Material And Methods:
This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic research was performed in major biomedical databases to identify human clinical studies evaluating r-CAIS. Eligible study designs included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized clinical studies, cohort studies, case series, and clinical reports. Data were extracted on study characteristics, robotic systems, accuracy outcomes, operative efficiency, complications, implant survival, and follow-up duration. Owing to methodological heterogeneity, a descriptive qualitative synthesis was performed.
Results:
Thirty-six clinical studies published between 2020 and 2026 were included. r-CAIS consistently demonstrated high positional accuracy, with most studies reporting submillimeter platform and apical deviations and angular deviations typically below 2 degrees. Comparative studies showed better accuracy than freehand implant surgery (FHIS) and comparable or improved performance relative to static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS) and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (d-CAIS). Complications were infrequent and generally minor, and short-term implant survival was high, often reaching 100%. Operative time commonly increased because of registration and system setup, and follow-up durations were predominantly short-term.
Conclusions:
Current clinical evidence indicates that robot-assisted dental implant surgery is a safe and highly accurate approach with favorable short-term outcomes. Nevertheless, increased workflow complexity, costs, and limited long-term data constrain routine adoption. Well-designed randomized trials with standardized reporting and extended follow-up are required to define its long-term clinical value.