Accuracy assessment of robot-assisted implant surgery in dentistry: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Published:January 08, 2024DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.12.003
Abstract
Statement of problem
The systematic assessment of accuracy of robot-assisted implant surgery is lacking.
Purpose
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy
of robot-assisted implant surgery and compare it with computer-aided implant surgery
in partially and completely edentulous patients and human phantoms.
Material and methods
The studies were selected from ScienceDirect, Web of science, Cochrane Library, PubMed,
and CNKI databases. The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated with the
risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. The mean and standard
deviation of global coronal, apical, and angular deviations of implants were the primary
outcome. Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the robot-assisted
implant surgery and compare it with computer-aided implant surgery in dental implantation
(α=.05).
Results
Eleven in vitro studies with 809 implants and 10 clinical studies with 257 implants
were included. For the in vitro studies, the mean global coronal, apical, and angular
deviations of robot-assisted implant surgery were 0.7 mm (95% CI: 0.6 to 0.8), 0.8 mm
(95% CI: 0.6 to 1.0), and 1.8 degrees (95%CI: 1.2 to 2.5), respectively. For the clinical
studies, the average global coronal, apical, and angular deviations of robot-assisted
implant surgery were 0.6 mm (95% CI: 0.5 to 0.8), 0.7 mm (95% CI: 0.6 to 0.8), and
1.6 degrees (95%CI: 1.1 to 2.0), respectively. For the in vitro studies, the robot-assisted
implant surgery group showed significantly more decrease in global coronal deviation
than the computer-assisted implant surgery group (P=.012). The robot-assisted implant surgery group offered smaller global apical deviation
(P=.001) and angular deviation (P<.001) than the computer-assisted implant surgery group.
Conclusions
Robot navigation is a clinically reliable method of implant placement. Significantly
lower global coronal, apical, and angular deviations were observed for robot-assisted
implant surgery compared with computer-assisted implant surgery in human phantoms.
Abstract
Statement of problem
The systematic assessment of accuracy of robot-assisted implant surgery is lacking.
Purpose
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy
of robot-assisted implant surgery and compare it with computer-aided implant surgery
in partially and completely edentulous patients and human phantoms.
Material and methods
The studies were selected from ScienceDirect, Web of science, Cochrane Library, PubMed,
and CNKI databases. The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated with the
risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. The mean and standard
deviation of global coronal, apical, and angular deviations of implants were the primary
outcome. Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the robot-assisted
implant surgery and compare it with computer-aided implant surgery in dental implantation
(α=.05).
Results
Eleven in vitro studies with 809 implants and 10 clinical studies with 257 implants
were included. For the in vitro studies, the mean global coronal, apical, and angular
deviations of robot-assisted implant surgery were 0.7 mm (95% CI: 0.6 to 0.8), 0.8 mm
(95% CI: 0.6 to 1.0), and 1.8 degrees (95%CI: 1.2 to 2.5), respectively. For the clinical
studies, the average global coronal, apical, and angular deviations of robot-assisted
implant surgery were 0.6 mm (95% CI: 0.5 to 0.8), 0.7 mm (95% CI: 0.6 to 0.8), and
1.6 degrees (95%CI: 1.1 to 2.0), respectively. For the in vitro studies, the robot-assisted
implant surgery group showed significantly more decrease in global coronal deviation
than the computer-assisted implant surgery group (P=.012). The robot-assisted implant surgery group offered smaller global apical deviation
(P=.001) and angular deviation (P<.001) than the computer-assisted implant surgery group.
Conclusions
Robot navigation is a clinically reliable method of implant placement. Significantly
lower global coronal, apical, and angular deviations were observed for robot-assisted
implant surgery compared with computer-assisted implant surgery in human phantoms.
Comments