Chen Jiaxian, Wang Yulan, Bai Yi, Chen Yan, Chen Zhenqi, Yan Qi, Zhang Yufeng
State Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, Hubei Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Department of Oral Implantology, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2025 May;36(5):662-670. doi: 10.1111/clr.14413. Epub 2025 Feb 3.
To assess the implant accuracy, safety, and efficiency between robotic-assisted and freehand dental implant placement with a half-year follow-up.
Patients requiring single-tooth implant restorations were recruited and randomized into two groups: robotic-assisted surgery and freehand implant surgery. The accuracy of implant positioning was compared by assessing immediate postoperative CBCT scans against preoperative planning software. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded, and data were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach. The time required for implant placement in each group was documented. A 6-month follow-up measured the implant survival rates.
The study included 24 patients (median age 36, 18 female). In the robotic-assisted surgery group, the average platform global deviation, apex global deviation, and angular deviation were 0.70 ± 0.11 mm, 0.70 ± 0.12 mm, and 1.09° ± 0.67°, respectively. In the freehand implant surgery group, these measures were 1.24 ± 0.59 mm, 2.13 ± 1.26 mm, and 7.43° ± 6.12°, respectively, with statistically significant differences. Regarding the duration of surgery, the robotic-assisted surgery group required 18.8 ± 4.89 min. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were similar across both groups, and the implant survival rate was 100% in both groups at the 6-month follow-up.
This study found that robot-assisted implant placement offers higher accuracy in implant positioning compared to freehand placement, while requiring longer operation times. Future developments should focus on simplifying the registration and design of robot systems to enhance efficiency and facilitate their broader clinical adoption.
通过半年的随访评估机器人辅助与徒手种植牙植入的准确性、安全性和效率。
招募需要单颗牙种植修复的患者并随机分为两组：机器人辅助手术组和徒手种植牙手术组。通过将术后即刻CBCT扫描与术前规划软件进行对比来比较种植体定位的准确性。记录术中及术后并发症，并采用意向性分析方法对数据进行分析。记录每组植入种植体所需的时间。6个月的随访测量种植体存活率。
该研究纳入了24例患者（中位年龄36岁，女性18例）。在机器人辅助手术组中，平均平台整体偏差、根尖整体偏差和角度偏差分别为0.70±0.11毫米、0.70±0.12毫米和1.09°±0.67°。在徒手种植牙手术组中，这些指标分别为1.24±0.59毫米、2.13±1.26毫米和7.43°±6.12°，差异具有统计学意义。关于手术时长，机器人辅助手术组需要18.8±4.89分钟。两组术中及术后并发症相似，6个月随访时两组种植体存活率均为100%。
本研究发现，与徒手植入相比，机器人辅助种植体植入在种植体定位方面具有更高的准确性，但手术时间更长。未来的发展应集中在简化机器人系统的注册和设计上，以提高效率并促进其在临床上的更广泛应用。
