Accuracy, Efficiency, and Patient‐ and Surgeon‐Reported Outcomes of Static Versus Robotic Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

ABSTRACT Objectives To assess implant placement accuracy, efficiency, and patient‐ and surgeon‐reported outcomes of static computer‐assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) and robotic computer‐assisted implant surgery (rCAIS) in single‐tooth posterior edentulism. Methods In this randomized clinical trial, 36 patients requiring posterior single‐tooth implant restoration were allocated to sCAIS ( n = 18) or rCAIS ( n = 18). Preoperative planning for all patients was performed using cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. The DICOM datasets were imported into planning software to conduct virtual implant planning in accordance with prosthetic‐driven and bone‐supported principles. Implant placement accuracy was assessed by superimposing CBCT‐based preoperative planning with postoperative cone beam computed tomography, measuring linear (coronal, apical) and angular deviations. Surgery time and patient‐reported experiences (anxiety, intraoperative discomfort, postoperative pain) and surgeon‐reported feedback were recorded for each group. Results The rCAIS group demonstrated significantly superior accuracy, with lower coronal (0.70 ± 0.44 mm vs. 1.02 ± 0.37 mm, p = 0.018), apical (0.75 ± 0.41 mm vs. 1.11 ± 0.40 mm, p = 0.009), and angular deviations (1.20° ± 0.44° vs. 2.38° ± 1.03°, p < 0.001). However, rCAIS required significantly longer surgery time (49.53 ± 12.96 min vs. 24.38 ± 6.51 min, p < 0.001) and resulted in greater intraoperative patient discomfort (3.00 ± 1.60 vs. 1.67 ± 1.87, p = 0.019). Surgeons reported easier access to the surgery site with sCAIS ( p < 0.01), whereas the complexity of the surgical procedure and primary implant stability of both groups were comparable. Conclusion The rCAIS provides superior implant placement accuracy compared to sCAIS but is associated with longer procedures and increased patient discomfort. The sCAIS offers reliable implant placement with simpler operation and greater adaptability. Clinical decision‐making should balance the benefits of accuracy with patient comfort, efficiency, and resource considerations. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06059573) and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300078795)

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Published
2026-05-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70138
Primary Topic
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Accuracy, Efficiency, and Patient‐ and Surgeon‐Reported Outcomes of Static Versus Robotic Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

W. Zhou, 曹颖光, Xijin Du, Zhilin Luo et al.
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
article

Accuracy, Efficiency, and Patient‐ and Surgeon‐Reported Outcomes of Static Versus Robotic Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

W. Zhou, 曹颖光, Xijin Du, Zhilin Luo, Min Wang, Lianyi Xu, Ke Song
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objectives To assess implant placement accuracy, efficiency, and patient‐ and surgeon‐reported outcomes of static computer‐assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) and robotic computer‐assisted implant surgery (rCAIS) in single‐tooth posterior edentulism. Methods In this randomized clinical trial, 36 patients requiring posterior single‐tooth implant restoration were allocated to sCAIS ( n = 18) or rCAIS ( n = 18). Preoperative planning for all patients was performed using cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. The DICOM datasets were imported into planning software to conduct virtual implant planning in accordance with prosthetic‐driven and bone‐supported principles. Implant placement accuracy was assessed by superimposing CBCT‐based preoperative planning with postoperative cone beam computed tomography, measuring linear (coronal, apical) and angular deviations. Surgery time and patient‐reported experiences (anxiety, intraoperative discomfort, postoperative pain) and surgeon‐reported feedback were recorded for each group. Results The rCAIS group demonstrated significantly superior accuracy, with lower coronal (0.70 ± 0.44 mm vs. 1.02 ± 0.37 mm, p = 0.018), apical (0.75 ± 0.41 mm vs. 1.11 ± 0.40 mm, p = 0.009), and angular deviations (1.20° ± 0.44° vs. 2.38° ± 1.03°, p < 0.001). However, rCAIS required significantly longer surgery time (49.53 ± 12.96 min vs. 24.38 ± 6.51 min, p < 0.001) and resulted in greater intraoperative patient discomfort (3.00 ± 1.60 vs. 1.67 ± 1.87, p = 0.019). Surgeons reported easier access to the surgery site with sCAIS ( p < 0.01), whereas the complexity of the surgical procedure and primary implant stability of both groups were comparable. Conclusion The rCAIS provides superior implant placement accuracy compared to sCAIS but is associated with longer procedures and increased patient discomfort. The sCAIS offers reliable implant placement with simpler operation and greater adaptability. Clinical decision‐making should balance the benefits of accuracy with patient comfort, efficiency, and resource considerations. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06059573) and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300078795)

Clinical Oral Implants Research
Wuhan University (CN), Hubei Zhongshan Hospital (CN), Tongji Hospital (CN), Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.