Accuracy and safety of a haptic operated and machine vision controlled collaborative robot for dental implant placement: A translational study.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple generations of medical robots have revolutionized surgery. Their application to dental implants is still in its infancy. Co-operating robots (cobots) have great potential to improve the accuracy of implant placement, overcoming the limitations of static and dynamic navigation. This study reports the accuracy of robot-assisted dental implant placement in a preclinical model and further applies the robotic system in a clinical case series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In model analyses, the use of a lock-on structure at robot arm-handpiece was tested in resin arch models. In a clinical case series, patients with single missing teeth or edentulous arch were included. Robot-assisted implant placement was performed. Surgery time was recorded. Implant platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation were measured. Factors influencing implant accuracy were analyzed. RESULTS: The in vitro results showed that with a lock-on structure, the mean (SD) of platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation were 0.37 (0.14) mm, 0.44 (0.17) mm, and 0.75 (0.29)°, respectively. Twenty-one patients (28 implants) were included in the clinical case series, 2 with arches and 19 with single missing teeth. The median surgery time for single missing teeth was 23 (IQ range 20-25) min. The surgery time for the two edentulous arches was 47 and 70 min. The mean (SD) of platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation was 0.54 (0.17) mm, 0.54 (0.11) mm, and 0.79 (0.22)° for single missing teeth and for 0.53 (0.17) mm, 0.58 (0.17) mm, and 0.77 (0.26)° for an edentulous arch. Implants placed in the mandible had significantly larger apex deviation than those in the maxilla. CONCLUSION: Cobot-assisted dental implant placement showed excellent positional accuracy and safety in both the in vitro study and the clinical case series. More technological development and clinical research are needed to support the introduction of robotic surgery in oral implantology. Trial registered in ChiCTR2100050885.

Clinical, radiographic and economic evaluation of short-6-mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation in moderately atrophic maxillae: A 3-year randomized clinical trial.

AIM: To compare the 3-year clinical, radiographic and economic outcomes of short-6-mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) in the posterior maxilla. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study enrolled 225 patients (225 implants with diameter of 4.1 mm and 4.8 mm) with a posterior maxillary residual bone height (RBH) of 6-8 mm. Patients were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1 (6 mm implants alone), Group 2 (8 mm implants + OSFE) and Group 3 (10 mm implants + OSFE). The following outcomes were recorded at 1 and 3-year examinations: implant survival, probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), modified plaque index (mPI), marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and technical complications, complication-free survival and treatment costs. RESULTS: At the 3-year follow-up, 199 patients (Group 1: 67; Group 2: 62; Group 3: 70) were re-examined. Implant survival rates were 91.80%, 97.08% and 100.00% in groups 1, 2 and 3. Implant survival rate in Group 1 was significantly lower than that in Group 3 (p = 0.029). A multivariate Cox model showed that the short-6-mm implants with wide diameter had a protective effect on implant survival (hazard ratio: 0.59, p = 0.001). No significant differences in BOP%, PPD, mPI, MBL and complication-free survival rate were found among the three groups. The average costs of retreatment were 8.31%, 1.96% and 0.56% of the total costs in groups 1, 2 and 3. The cost to avoid a 1% increase in implant loss associated with 6-mm implants over a 3-year period was 369 CNY (56 USD) using a 10-mm implant with OSFE and 484 CNY (74 USD) using an 8-mm implant with OSFE. CONCLUSION: In the moderately atrophic posterior maxillae, the three treatments showed acceptable clinical, radiographic and economic outcomes with up to 3-year follow-up. 10-mm implants combined with OSFE showed more favourable implant survival and fewer maintenance costs in comparison with short-6-mm implants, which were less expensive.