Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 9, 2026
Dynamic Navigation for Dental Implant Placement
Published on: September 13, 2022
Short implant placement using robotic and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS and d-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 robotic and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS and d-CAIS) for short implant placement across two implant diameters, in terms of implant placement accuracy and primary stability.
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 r-CAIS and d-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, while neither technique demonstrated consistent superiority across the evaluated accuracy and primary stability outcomes.
Clinical Significance:
Under in vitro conditions, r-CAIS may offer more consistent accuracy across implant diameters in short implant placement compared to d-CAIS.