Accuracy of an autonomous dental implant robotic system in placing tilted implants for edentulous arches

Shuang Xi; Jun Hu; Guangna Yue; Shaohai Wang

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.07.032

Accuracy of an autonomous dental implant robotic system in placing tilted implants for edentulous arches

J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Sep 19:S0022-3913(24)00521-3. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.07.032. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Shuang Xi¹, Jun Hu¹, Guangna Yue¹, Shaohai Wang²

Affiliations

¹ Resident, Department of Stomatology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, PR China.
² Professor, Department of Stomatology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, PR China. Electronic address: shaohaiwang@tongji.edu.cn.

PMID: 39304489
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.07.032

Abstract

Statement of problem: Accurate placement of tilted implants is essential as they are typically close to important anatomic structures. Inaccurate implant position may damage those structures and affect outcomes.

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy and efficiency of an autonomous dental implant robotic (ADIR) system and a static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) system in placing tilted implants in edentulous patients.

Material and methods: Ten 3-dimensionally (3D) printed edentulous mandibular casts were assigned to 1 of 2 groups (ADIR and sCAIS). The coronal, apical, and angular deviations of the placement of tilted implants, preoperative preparation time, and surgical time were compared between the 2 groups. The paired samples t test and the independent samples t test were used to compare the groups (α=.05).

Results: The mean ±standard deviation of coronal, apical, and angular deviation in the ADIR group and sCAIS group were 0.47 ±0.06 mm versus 1.09 ±0.11 mm, 0.47 ±0.05 mm versus 1.53 ±0.14 mm, and 0.91 ±0.82 degrees versus 2.83 ±0.55 degrees, respectively. The deviations of the tilted implant positions in the ADIR were relatively small and significantly different from those of sCAIS (P<.05). The preoperative preparation time of the ADIR group was significantly longer than that of the sCAIS group (P<.001), and the surgical time for the 2 groups was statistically similar (P=.259).

Conclusions: Compared with the sCAIS system, the deviation of tilted implants in the ADIR group was smaller, but the preoperative preparation time was longer. The results indicated that using the ADIR for tilted implantation can lead to more accurate implantation positions and reduce the occurrence of complications. However, it is time consuming, and the workflow should be simplified to improve efficiency.