Evidence Hub

The Accuracy of Autonomous Robotic Surgery vs. Dynamic Navigation in Implant Placement: An Open-Label, Double-Arm, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Hong-Bo Wei, Zhi-Yuan Shu, Miao-Miao Tian, Y. Ge, De-Hua Li

Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2025

40 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the accuracy and clinical outcomes of an autonomous robot with dynamic navigation in implant placement under standardized conditions, with the same optical tracking system.

METHODS

A prospective open-label randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms enrolled 40 patients with a single tooth missing. Participants were randomly allocated to either the autonomous robot group (AR group, n = 20) or the dynamic navigation group (DN group, n = 20) for implant placement. The surgical systems of these two groups utilized the same optical tracking technology. The primary parameters for accuracy analysis were angular, coronal, and apical deviations between planned and actual implant positions. Secondary outcomes included surgical time, patient-reported pain, edema, complications, and early implant success rate.

RESULTS

The AR group demonstrated significantly lower angular deviation of implants (1.01° ± 0.65°) compared to the DN group (1.78° ± 1.15°, p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference found in coronal and apical implant deviations. Surgical time was longer for robotic procedures (21.52 ± 9.81 min vs. 14.27 ± 3.57 min, p < 0.01). Postoperative pain, edema, complications, and early implant success rate were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, the autonomous robot achieved superior angular accuracy of implant placement compared to dynamic navigation; however, there was no…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 40 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free