Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM41108766
Comparison of dental implant placement accuracy between robotic and static or dynamic computer-assisted surgeries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Wang J, Gao M, Zhao Y, et al. · Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.4317/medoral.27132
Findings
6 findings
| Population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edentulous or partially edentulous patients receiving dental implants (clinical studies) | Robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (rCAIS) | Static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) | Global platform deviation between planned and actual implant position on CBCT Postoperative CBCT | MD -0.73 [-1.0, -0.45] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 323 participants |
| Edentulous or partially edentulous patients receiving dental implants (clinical studies) | Robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (rCAIS) | Static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) | Angular deviation between planned and actual implant position on CBCT Postoperative CBCT | MD -1.51 [-2.71, -0.32] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 323 participants |
| Edentulous or partially edentulous patients receiving dental implants (clinical studies) | Robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (rCAIS) | Static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) | Global apex deviation between planned and actual implant position on CBCT Postoperative CBCT | MD -0.84 [-1.12, -0.56] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 323 participants |
| Implants placed in edentulous or partially edentulous models (in vitro studies) | Robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (rCAIS) | Dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (dCAIS) | Global apex deviation between planned and actual implant position on CBCT Postoperative CBCT | MD -0.19 [-0.27, -0.1] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 540 participants |
| Implants placed in edentulous or partially edentulous models (in vitro studies) | Robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (rCAIS) | Dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (dCAIS) | Angular deviation between planned and actual implant position on CBCT Postoperative CBCT | MD -1.03 [-1.7, -0.37] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 540 participants |
| Implants placed in edentulous or partially edentulous models (in vitro studies) | Robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (rCAIS) | Dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (dCAIS) | Global platform deviation between planned and actual implant position on CBCT Postoperative CBCT | MD -0.15 [-0.24, -0.07] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 540 participants |
Included primary studies 20
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Li et al. 2024 Accuracy of immediate anterior implantation using static and robotic computer-assisted implant surgery: A retrospective study. PMID:38955260 | 2024 | 3 other reviews | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Jia et al. 2025 Accuracy of an autonomous dental implant robotic system versus static guide-assisted implant surgery: A retrospective clinical study. PMID:37291043 | 2025 | 2 other reviews | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Wang et al. 2024 Accuracy of the Yakebot dental implant robotic system versus fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery template in edentulous… PMID:37728030 | 2024 | 2 other reviews | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Zhang et al. 2024 Accuracy of implant placement via dynamic navigation and autonomous robotic computer-assisted implant surgery methods: A retrospective… PMID:38033198 | 2024 | 2 other reviews | not stated | not extracted yet |
| He et al. 2024 (a) in vitro In vitro and in vivo accuracy of autonomous robotic vs. fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery. PMID:38214435 | 2024 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Bai 2021 DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20210107-00008 | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Bai et al. 2021 [Animal experiment on the accuracy of the Autonomous Dental Implant Robotic System]. PMID:33557501 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Chen 2023 Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study DOI:10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Chen et al. 2023 Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study. PMID:36978064 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Chen J 2024 Accuracy of immediate dental implant placement with task‐autonomous robotic system and navigation system: An in vitro study DOI:10.1111/clr.14104 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Chen J et al. 2024 Accuracy of immediate dental implant placement with task-autonomous robotic system and navigation system: An in vitro study. PMID:37248610 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| He 2024 In vitro and in vivo accuracy of autonomous robotic vs. fully guided static computer‐assisted implant surgery DOI:10.1111/cid.13302 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Jia 2025 Accuracy of an autonomous dental implant robotic system versus static guide-assisted implant surgery: A retrospective clinical study DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.04.027 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Li 2024 Accuracy of immediate anterior implantation using static and robotic computer-assisted implant surgery: A retrospective study DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105218 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Mozer 2024 An in vitro analysis of the accuracy of static and robot‐assisted implant surgery DOI:10.1111/clr.14233 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Mozer et al. 2024 An in vitro analysis of the accuracy of static and robot-assisted implant surgery. PMID:38189471 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Tao 2022 Accuracy of dental implant surgery using dynamic navigation and robotic systems: An in vitro study DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104170 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Tao et al. 2022 Accuracy of dental implant surgery using dynamic navigation and robotic systems: An in vitro study. PMID:35679989 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Wang 2024 Accuracy of the Yakebot dental implant robotic system versus fully guided static computer‐assisted implant surgery template in edentulous… DOI:10.1111/cid.13278 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Zhang 2024 Accuracy of implant placement via dynamic navigation and autonomous robotic computer‐assisted implant surgery methods: A retrospective study DOI:10.1111/clr.14216 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Partially or completely edentulous participants, including clinical human subjects and preclinical models (in vitro, animal, cadaveric) | Clinical: 4 studies (157 rCAIS and 166 sCAIS implants); in vitro: 3 studies (270 vs 270 implants); 1 animal study and 2 further in vitro studies not pooled |
| Intervention | Robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (rCAIS) | rCAIS (robot systems autonomy level 1 or 2) |
| Comparison | Static (sCAIS) or dynamic (dCAIS) computer-assisted implant surgery | sCAIS (fully guided) or dCAIS (navigation) |
| Outcomes | Accuracy of implant placement: angular deviation, global coronal (platform) deviation, global apical deviation | Global platform deviation; global apex deviation; angular deviation |
| Study designs | Prospective and retrospective studies including RCTs, cohort, case-control and preclinical studies | 1 CCT, 4 retrospective studies, 5 in vitro studies, 1 animal study |
| Timing | Not specified | Not specified |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | No | No | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: Yes | NRSI: Yes · RCT: N/A | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: Yes | RCT: N/A · NRSI: No | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |