Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 9, 2026
Dynamic Navigation for Dental Implant Placement
Published on: September 13, 2022
Short implant placement using dynamic and robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (d-CAIS and r-CAIS): a controlled
Alvaro Limones1, Raquel Alonso-Perez1, Sally-Thressy Sanchez1
1Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Objective:
To compare dynamic and robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (d-CAIS and r-CAIS) in the placement of short implants in terms of implant placement accuracy and primary stability.
Materials And Methods:
In this controlled in vitro study, Ø3.3- and Ø4.75-mm implants with a length of 4.5 mm were placed in standardized D3-density bone-analogue models using d-CAIS or r-CAIS (n = 9 per experimental condition). Coronal, apical, and angular deviations and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were analyzed using robust two-factor linear models; and maximum insertion torque using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn pairwise comparisons. Pairwise comparisons were adjusted using the Bonferroni adjustment (α = 0.05).
Results:
Implant diameter significantly affected coronal and apical deviations, with significant technique-by-diameter interactions for both outcomes. Within r-CAIS, neither coronal nor apical deviation differed significantly between diameters (both P = 1.000), whereas within d-CAIS, Ø4.75-mm implants showed significantly greater coronal (MD 0.508 mm; 95% CI: 0.200 to 0.816 mm; P < .001) and apical deviations (MD 0.412 mm; 95% CI: 0.063 to 0.761 mm; P = .014) than Ø3.3-mm implants. At Ø3.3 mm, r-CAIS also showed lower angular deviation than d-CAIS (MD -1.669°; 95% CI: -2.639° to -0.699°; P < .001). Maximum insertion torque did not differ significantly between techniques at either diameter, whereas overall ISQ was slightly lower with r-CAIS than with d-CAIS (MD -4.903; 95% CI: -6.930 to -2.875; P < .001).
Conclusions:
Under in vitro conditions, r-CAIS may provide more consistent placement accuracy across implant diameters than d-CAIS when placing short implants, although no significant overall differences in accuracy were detected between the two CAIS techniques. Maximum insertion torque did not differ significantly between techniques at either diameter, whereas d-CAIS yielded slightly higher overall ISQ values.