Clinical oral implants research · 2026
Trueness of Dental Implant Placement With Robotic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shuborna Nadia Sultana, Jiaranuchart Sirimanas, Chow James, Pozzi Alessandro, Mattheos Nikos, Subbalekha Keskanya
Аннотация
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.
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.