International journal of implant dentistry · 2025
Accuracy of robot-assisted implant surgery versus freehand placement: a retrospective clinical study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Younis Hamza, Xu Boya, Acharya Kiran, He Longlong, Du Liangzhi, Elayah Sadam Ahmed, Chang Xiaofeng, Lv Chengpeng
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the accuracy of implant placement using a robotic system (Remebot) compared to freehand surgery and explored factors influencing accuracy.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 95 implants placed in 65 patients, divided into robot-assisted (50 implants) and freehand (45 implants) groups. Platform, apical, and angular deviations were measured by superimposing preoperative plans and the postoperative CBCT images. Mean deviations between groups were compared, and regression analysis assessed the impact of implant dimensions and positioning on accuracy.
RESULTS: The robot-assisted group exhibited significantly lower mean deviations in platform (0.44 ± 0.17 mm), apical (0.46 ± 0.17 mm), and angular deviations (0.85 ± 0.47°) compared to the freehand group (1.38 ± 0.77 mm, 1.77 ± 0.82 mm, and 6.63 ± 3.90°, respectively; p < 0.001). Regression analysis indicated no significant impact of implant location, jaw type, or implant dimensions on the robotic system's accuracy, unlike the freehand placement where these factors influenced deviations.
CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted implant surgery significantly enhances accuracy and clinical safety compared to freehand techniques. Despite limitations, robotic surgery presents a promising advancement in implant dentistry by reducing human error.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 95 implants placed in 65 patients, divided into robot-assisted (50 implants) and freehand (45 implants) groups. Platform, apical, and angular deviations were measured by superimposing preoperative plans and the postoperative CBCT images. Mean deviations between groups were compared, and regression analysis assessed the impact of implant dimensions and positioning on accuracy.
RESULTS: The robot-assisted group exhibited significantly lower mean deviations in platform (0.44 ± 0.17 mm), apical (0.46 ± 0.17 mm), and angular deviations (0.85 ± 0.47°) compared to the freehand group (1.38 ± 0.77 mm, 1.77 ± 0.82 mm, and 6.63 ± 3.90°, respectively; p < 0.001). Regression analysis indicated no significant impact of implant location, jaw type, or implant dimensions on the robotic system's accuracy, unlike the freehand placement where these factors influenced deviations.
CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted implant surgery significantly enhances accuracy and clinical safety compared to freehand techniques. Despite limitations, robotic surgery presents a promising advancement in implant dentistry by reducing human error.