Objective This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of robot-assisted implantation by comparing it with guide-assisted implantation in different surgical contexts, including immediate implantation, multi-tooth implantation, maxillary sinus lift, and bone defect. Methods Patients receiving implantation with static guide-assisted implant procedures or robot-assisted procedures were classified into the guide group (30 patients, 31 implants) and robot group (30 patients, 32 implants), respectively. Pre- and post-operative CBCT scans were processed with software for 3D reconstruction. Deviations between the original plan and actual implant placement at the apical level, cervical level, and implant angulation were projected into mesio-distal and bucco-lingual directions respectively, and were measured for analysis along with depth discrepancy. Results Comparing with guide group in this study, the robot group enjoyed smaller angular deviations in both bucco-lingual direction (1.289° ± 1.067 vs. 0.483° ± 0.334, P<0.01) and mesio-distal direction (1.652° ± 1.421 vs. 0.509° ± 0.426, P<0.01). Deviation analysis also demonstrated the advantage of robot system in controlling deviation at cervical (B-L: 0.461 ± 0.310mm vs. 0.183 ± 0.190mm, P<0.01; M-D: 0.441 ± 0.231mm vs. 0.121 ± 0.125mm, P<0.01) and apical distance (B-L: 0.508 ± 0.330mm vs. 0.164 ± 0.154mm, P<0.01; M-D: 0.476 ± 0.346mm vs. 0.135 ± 0.124mm, P<0.01). No important difference was noted in depth accuracy (0.426 ± 0.205, 0.335 ± 0.029, P>0.05). Notably, the precision of robotic implant placement remained consistently high across various procedures, including conventional, immediate, bone defect, class IV bone, sinus elevation, and multiple-tooth placements, with no important variation. Conclusion Compared to guide-assisted techniques, the robotic implantation system offers superior accuracy in clinical implanting contexts. Its integration allows surgeons to focus more on planning and evaluation workflow, reducing manual effort and potentially lowering labor costs. Trial registration Full name of the registry: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Trial registration number: ChiCTR2500109094. This study was retrospectively registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (<ExternalRef> <RefSource>www.chictr.org.cn</RefSource> <RefTarget Address="www.chictr.org.cn" TargetType="Other" /> </ExternalRef>) on 11th Sept 2025.

Comparative accuracy analysis of robotic and static guided implant surgery: a retrospective clinical study

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2026年1月9日

查看全文

Fei Zhong,
Gang Chen,
Binbin Sun,
Fengping Wu,
Yulin An

摘要

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of robot-assisted implantation by comparing it with guide-assisted implantation in different surgical contexts, including immediate implantation, multi-tooth implantation, maxillary sinus lift, and bone defect.

Methods

Patients receiving implantation with static guide-assisted implant procedures or robot-assisted procedures were classified into the guide group (30 patients, 31 implants) and robot group (30 patients, 32 implants), respectively. Pre- and post-operative CBCT scans were processed with software for 3D reconstruction. Deviations between the original plan and actual implant placement at the apical level, cervical level, and implant angulation were projected into mesio-distal and bucco-lingual directions respectively, and were measured for analysis along with depth discrepancy.

Results

Comparing with guide group in this study, the robot group enjoyed smaller angular deviations in both bucco-lingual direction (1.289° ± 1.067 vs. 0.483° ± 0.334, P<0.01) and mesio-distal direction (1.652° ± 1.421 vs. 0.509° ± 0.426, P<0.01). Deviation analysis also demonstrated the advantage of robot system in controlling deviation at cervical (B-L: 0.461 ± 0.310mm vs. 0.183 ± 0.190mm, P<0.01; M-D: 0.441 ± 0.231mm vs. 0.121 ± 0.125mm, P<0.01) and apical distance (B-L: 0.508 ± 0.330mm vs. 0.164 ± 0.154mm, P<0.01; M-D: 0.476 ± 0.346mm vs. 0.135 ± 0.124mm, P<0.01). No important difference was noted in depth accuracy (0.426 ± 0.205, 0.335 ± 0.029, P>0.05). Notably, the precision of robotic implant placement remained consistently high across various procedures, including conventional, immediate, bone defect, class IV bone, sinus elevation, and multiple-tooth placements, with no important variation.

Conclusion

Compared to guide-assisted techniques, the robotic implantation system offers superior accuracy in clinical implanting contexts. Its integration allows surgeons to focus more on planning and evaluation workflow, reducing manual effort and potentially lowering labor costs.

Trial registration

Full name of the registry: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Trial registration number: ChiCTR2500109094. This study was retrospectively registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( www.chictr.org.cn ) on 11^th Sept 2025.