PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 31, 2026Journal Of Clinical Periodontology2 citations

Comparative Accuracy of Intraoral Scanning and CBCT Registration in Robotic Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery for Partially Edentulous Patients: A Randomised Controlled Trial

View Full Paper
YWYulan WangJCJiaxian ChenYZYaoyu Zhao

Key Points

  • The aim is to compare implant positional accuracy between intraoral scanning and CBCT registration in robotic surgery.
  • Randomised controlled trial with two groups: CBCT and IOS.
  • Patients receiving anterior or premolar implants were enrolled.
  • Implant accuracy measured by global platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation.
  • Patient satisfaction and implant survival rates were assessed at prosthesis delivery.
  • Linear mixed-effects modelling used for statistical analysis.
  • 32 patients participated, with 16 in each group and 25 implants per group.
  • Mean global platform deviation for IOS: 0.89 mm; for CBCT: 0.88 mm.
  • Mean global apex deviation for IOS: 0.95 mm; for CBCT: 0.98 mm.
  • Mean angular deviation for IOS: 1.91°; for CBCT: 1.84°.
  • Both groups showed 100% implant survival and patient satisfaction.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Aim To compare the impact of intraoral scanning (IOS) and cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) registration on implant positional accuracy in robotic computer‐assisted implant surgery (r‐CAIS). Materials and Methods Patients requiring implant placement in the anterior or premolar regions were enrolled and randomly allocated to either a CBCT group or an IOS group at a 1:1 ratio. Implant positional accuracy was assessed by comparing planned versus actual implant positions using global platform deviation, global apex deviation and angular deviation. Subgroup analyses were performed based on jaw position and span length. The implant survival rate and patient satisfaction were recorded at prosthesis delivery. Statistical analysis was performed using linear mixed‐effects modelling. Results Thirty‐two patients were included (16 patients with 25 implants in each group). In the IOS group, the global platform deviation, global apex deviation and angular deviation were reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD): 0.89 (0.65) mm, 0.95 (0.77) mm and 1.91 (1.98)°, respectively. In the CBCT group, the corresponding values were 0.88 (0.42) mm, 0.98 (0.46) mm and 1.84 (1.46)°. No statistically significant differences were found between IOS and CBCT groups ( p > 0.05) regardless of jaw position or edentulous span. The implant survival rate and patient satisfaction were 100% in both groups. Conclusions Preoperative registration using IOS is non‐inferior to CBCT‐based registration in implant accuracy for r‐CAIS, supporting its application as a radiation‐free alternative for registration in partially edentulous patients with sufficient number of stable residual teeth. Trial Registration ChiCTR2400093045

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69cb6541e6a8c024954b9531https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.70120
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper