Comparison of Implant Precision with Robots, Navigation, or Static Guides

Abstract

Precise surgical positioning according to a digital plan is important for aesthetic and biologically stable dental implant restorations. This randomized controlled trial compared implant placement assisted by robotic surgery (RS), dynamic navigation (DN), or 3-dimensional printed static guide (SG). An overall 45 patients with a missing tooth in the premolar/molar region were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 groups. Implant positional accuracy (primary outcome), early wound healing, soft tissue microcirculation, patient-reported outcome measures, and surgeon preference were measured by calibrated blind examiners. One adverse event occurred in DN and RS. In RS (n = 15), the global platform, apex deviation, and angular deviations (mean ± SD) were 1.1 ± 0.4 mm, 1.5 ± 0.6 mm, and 4.7° ± 2.5°, respectively. Similarly, deviations were 1.3 ± 0.6 mm, 1.9 ± 0.9 mm, and 5.5° ± 3.5° in the DN group (n = 14) and 1.1 ± 0.6 mm, 2.0 ± 1.2 mm, and 6.2° ± 4.0° in the SG group (n = 13). Significantly smaller differential deviations (mesial-distal) at the platform and apex levels were found in the RS group than the SG group (P < 0.05). Surgery was significantly shorter with a SG (P < 0.001), and this was associated with better postoperative recovery at 3 d. The surgeon assessed DN as providing easier access to reach the surgical site. No significant differences were found upon comparing soft tissue microcirculation and oxygen saturation immediately, 1 h, or 7 d after surgery. Patient-reported outcomes were comparable in the 3 groups, except that patients in the SG group reported better oral health–related quality of life 3 d after surgery. It can be concluded that RS showed near-zero 3-dimensional systematic error in implant position, while DN and SG demonstrated a centrifugal error pattern. All 3 guided approaches had uneventful wound healing and acceptable patient-reported outcomes. The 3 groups had specific cost-benefit profiles. After additional technical developments, future trials with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods should be performed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of different guided surgical approaches.