Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This meta-analysis assessed the trueness of dental implant placement using robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS) compared to non-guided and other CAIS techniques. Analyzing 19 studies, r-CAIS demonstrated an overall implant deviation of 0.75 mm at the platform, 0.79 mm at the apex, and 1.88° in angle. r-CAIS showed significantly less deviation compared to non-guided implant placement and less apex and angle deviation than static CAIS, and less angle deviation than dynamic CAIS.
Robotic computer-assisted implant surgery achieves higher trueness in dental implant placement compared to non-guided and some other computer-assisted techniques, particularly in apex and angle deviation.
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess the trueness of dental implant placement with robotic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (r-CAIS), compare it with non-guided and other CAIS approaches, and investigate potential differences between sites in the maxilla and mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS A literature search was carried out in Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Cochrane Library to find prospective clinical studies where r-CAIS was used either as the sole procedure or compared with other CAIS approaches. Studies reporting trueness measured by means of deviation on platform, apex, and angle were included. RESULTS Nineteen studies were eligible. The overall implant deviation using r-CAIS was 0.75 mm (95% Confidence interval [CI] = 0.68; 0.83), 0.79 mm (95% CI = 0.71; 0.87), and 1.88° (95% CI = 1.55; 2.20), in platform, apex, and angle, respectively. r-CAIS showed significantly less deviation compared to non-guided implant placement. Moreover, r-CAIS demonstrated less apex and angle deviation than static CAIS, and less angle deviation than dynamic CAIS. No difference in the trueness between the maxilla and the mandible was noted. CONCLUSIONS Although several clinical trials on r-CAIS are now available, only a few comparative studies have been performed. Within these limitations, r-CAIS can achieve a high level of trueness in implant placement. Future comparative clinical trials with other implant placement methods are needed to augment the available evidence and provide more robust conclusions.
