Yang Wen, Weng Jin-Long, Sun Feng, Jiao Hai, Ma Fei-Fei, Wu Bin-Zhang
First Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices, China.
First Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices, China.
J Dent. 2025 Oct;161:105962. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105962. Epub 2025 Jul 8.
To assess and compare the accuracy of robot-assisted and dynamic navigation systems for dental implant placement in models with either a single missing tooth or multiple consecutive missing teeth at the distal extension.
Thirty-two models and 86 implants were utilized. Implant placement was randomly assigned using either a robot-assisted or dynamic navigation system. The accuracy was evaluated by superimposing planned and actual implant positions. The primary study outcome was angular deviation, while secondary outcomes included three-dimensional deviations at the implant entry and apex levels.
Across all models, the robot-assisted group demonstrated a median angular deviation of 1.15°, compared to 1.99° with the dynamic navigation system (P < 0.01). Entry and apex deviations were 0.90 mm vs. 0.92 mm and 1.00 mm vs. 0.99 mm, respectively. In single-tooth cases, significant differences between groups were observed in entry and apex depth deviations (P = 0.038 and P = 0.032, respectively). In models with multiple missing teeth, the robot-assisted system showed significantly lower angular, apex, and apex horizontal deviations than dynamic navigation system (P < 0.05).
Both approaches yield a high degree of accuracy in vitro for implant placement. However, the robot-assisted approach may offer improved precision, particularly in complex cases involving multiple missing teeth.
The lower deviations in terms of accuracy demonstrated by the robot-assisted approach in the study would have potential benefits for the application of robots in relatively complex implant surgeries.
评估并比较机器人辅助系统和动态导航系统在单颗牙缺失或远中端连续多颗牙缺失模型中进行牙种植体植入的准确性。
使用了32个模型和86颗种植体。种植体植入通过随机分配使用机器人辅助系统或动态导航系统。通过叠加计划种植体位置和实际种植体位置来评估准确性。主要研究结果是角度偏差，次要结果包括种植体入口和根尖水平的三维偏差。
在所有模型中，机器人辅助组的中位角度偏差为1.15°，而动态导航系统为1.99°（P < 0.01）。入口和根尖偏差分别为0.90 mm对0.92 mm和1.00 mm对0.99 mm。在单颗牙病例中，两组在入口和根尖深度偏差方面存在显著差异（分别为P = 0.038和P = 0.032）。在多颗牙缺失模型中，机器人辅助系统的角度、根尖和根尖水平偏差显著低于动态导航系统（P < 0.05）。
两种方法在体外进行种植体植入时都具有高度准确性。然而，机器人辅助方法可能提供更高的精度，特别是在涉及多颗牙缺失的复杂病例中。
研究中机器人辅助方法在准确性方面较低的偏差对于机器人在相对复杂的种植手术中的应用可能具有潜在益处。
