What does this research mean for the field?

Robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (rCAIS) provides superior implant placement accuracy compared to static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS), but is associated with longer procedure times and increased patient discomfort. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To compare the accuracy, efficiency, and outcomes of static and robotic computer-assisted implant surgery in single-tooth posterior edentulism.

May 31, 2026

Accuracy, Efficiency, and Patient‐ and Surgeon‐Reported Outcomes of Static Versus Robotic Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Key Points

To compare the accuracy, efficiency, and outcomes of static and robotic computer-assisted implant surgery in single-tooth posterior edentulism.
Randomized clinical trial with 36 patients requiring posterior single-tooth implant restoration.
Patients were divided into static computer-assisted (sCAIS) and robotic computer-assisted (rCAIS) groups, each with 18 participants.
Preoperative planning used cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and involved measuring implant placement deviations post-surgery.
The rCAIS group showed lower coronal deviation (0.70 mm vs. 1.02 mm, p = 0.018) and apical deviation (0.75 mm vs. 1.11 mm, p = 0.009).
Angular deviation was significantly better in rCAIS (1.20° vs. 2.38°, p < 0.001).
However, rCAIS increased surgery time (49.53 min vs. 24.38 min, p < 0.001) and intraoperative discomfort (3.00 vs. 1.67, p = 0.019).

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objectives To assess implant placement accuracy, efficiency, and patient‐ and surgeon‐reported outcomes of static computer‐assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) and robotic computer‐assisted implant surgery (rCAIS) in single‐tooth posterior edentulism. Methods In this randomized clinical trial, 36 patients requiring posterior single‐tooth implant restoration were allocated to sCAIS ( n = 18) or rCAIS ( n = 18). Preoperative planning for all patients was performed using cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. The DICOM datasets were imported into planning software to conduct virtual implant planning in accordance with prosthetic‐driven and bone‐supported principles. Implant placement accuracy was assessed by superimposing CBCT‐based preoperative planning with postoperative cone beam computed tomography, measuring linear (coronal, apical) and angular deviations. Surgery time and patient‐reported experiences (anxiety, intraoperative discomfort, postoperative pain) and surgeon‐reported feedback were recorded for each group. Results The rCAIS group demonstrated significantly superior accuracy, with lower coronal (0.70 ± 0.44 mm vs. 1.02 ± 0.37 mm, p = 0.018), apical (0.75 ± 0.41 mm vs. 1.11 ± 0.40 mm, p = 0.009), and angular deviations (1.20° ± 0.44° vs. 2.38° ± 1.03°, p < 0.001). However, rCAIS required significantly longer surgery time (49.53 ± 12.96 min vs. 24.38 ± 6.51 min, p < 0.001) and resulted in greater intraoperative patient discomfort (3.00 ± 1.60 vs. 1.67 ± 1.87, p = 0.019). Surgeons reported easier access to the surgery site with sCAIS ( p < 0.01), whereas the complexity of the surgical procedure and primary implant stability of both groups were comparable. Conclusion The rCAIS provides superior implant placement accuracy compared to sCAIS but is associated with longer procedures and increased patient discomfort. The sCAIS offers reliable implant placement with simpler operation and greater adaptability. Clinical decision‐making should balance the benefits of accuracy with patient comfort, efficiency, and resource considerations. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06059573) and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300078795)

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark