Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This study evaluated the accuracy of implant placement using a robotic system (Remebot) compared to freehand surgery and explored factors influencing accuracy.</p> Methods <p>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.</p> Results <p>The robot-assisted group exhibited significantly lower mean deviations in platform (0.44 ± 0.17&#xa0;mm), apical (0.46 ± 0.17&#xa0;mm), and angular deviations (0.85 ± 0.47°) compared to the freehand group (1.38 ± 0.77&#xa0;mm, 1.77 ± 0.82&#xa0;mm, and 6.63 ± 3.90°, respectively; <i>p</i> &lt; 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.</p> Conclusions <p>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.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Accuracy of robot-assisted implant surgery versus freehand placement: a retrospective clinical study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月3日

查看全文
  • Hamza Younis,
  • Boya Xu,
  • Kiran Acharya,
  • Longlong He,
  • Liangzhi Du,
  • Sadam Ahmed Elayah,
  • Xiaofeng Chang,
  • Chengpeng Lv

摘要

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.