An in vitro analysis of the accuracy of static and robot‐assisted implant surgery

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesRobot‐assisted implant surgery (RAIS) is purported to improve the accuracy of implant placement. The objective of this study was to compare RAIS with static computer‐assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) in a controlled environment.Materials and MethodsA total of n = 102 implants were placed in the same modified typodont (n = 17 repeated simulated implant surgeries with each n = 3 implants per group) using robot‐assisted or static computer‐assisted implant surgery. The final implant positions were digitized utilizing cone‐beam tomography and compared with the planned position. The angular deviation was the primary outcome parameter. 3D deviations at the implant platform level and the apex were secondary outcome parameters. Accuracy in terms of trueness and precision were assessed. Means, standard deviation, and 95%‐confidence intervals were analyzed statistically.ResultsThe overall angular deviation was 2.66 ± 1.83° for the robotic system and 0.68 ± 0.38° for guided surgery using static guides (p < .001), the 3D‐deviation of the implant platform at crest level was for sCAIS 0.79 ± 0.28 mm and RAIS 1.51 ± 0.53 mm (p < .001) and at the apex for sCAIS 0.82 ± 0.26 mm and for RAIS 1.97 ± 0.79 mm (p < .001), respectively.ConclusionsRobotically guided implant surgery was less accurate in terms of trueness (planned vs. actual position) and precision (deviations among implants) than traditional static computer‐assisted implant surgery in this in vitro study.