Comparative analysis of dental implant placement accuracy: Semi‐active robotic versus free‐hand techniques: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Background Robot‐assisted implant surgery has emerged as a novel digital technology, and the accuracy need further assessment. Purpose This study aimed to compare the accuracy of single dental implant placement between a novel semi‐active robot‐assisted implant surgery (RAIS) method and the conventi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical implant dentistry and related research 2024-12, Vol.26 (6), p.1149-1161
Main Authors: Yang, Fan, Chen, Jianping, Cao, Ruijue, Tang, Qingwei, Liu, Haiyan, Zheng, Yuchen, Liu, BeiLei, Huang, Min, Wang, Zhenshi, Ding, Yude, Wang, Linhong
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Adult
Angular position
Clinical trials
Comparative analysis
Control equipment
Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods
Dental Implants
Dental materials
Dental prosthetics
Deviation
Female
free‐hand surgery
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Morbidity
Original
Patients
Randomization
randomized controlled trial
Research facilities
Robotic surgery
Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods
robot‐assisted surgery
semi‐active
Surgery
Surgical instruments
Surgical outcomes
Technology assessment
Vertical orientation
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Robot‐assisted implant surgery has emerged as a novel digital technology, and the accuracy need further assessment. Purpose This study aimed to compare the accuracy of single dental implant placement between a novel semi‐active robot‐assisted implant surgery (RAIS) method and the conventional free‐hand implant surgery (FHIS) method through a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. Materials and Methods Patients requiring single dental implant placement were recruited and randomized into RAIS and FHIS group. Deviations at the platform, apex, and angle between the planned and final implant positions were assessed in both groups. Additionally, the evaluation of instrument and surgical complications was examined. Results A total of 140 patients (median age: 35.35 ± 12.55 years; 43 males, 97 females) with 140 implants from four different research centers were included, with 70 patients (70 implants) in the RAIS group and 70 patients (70 implants) in the FHIS group. In the RAIS and FHIS groups, the median platform deviations were 0.76 ± 0.36 mm and 1.48 ± 0.93 mm, respectively (p 
ISSN:1523-0899
1708-8208
1708-8208
DOI:10.1111/cid.13375