Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM41963896
The accuracy of robotic-assisted zygomatic implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Fan Shengchi, Singkhorn Thidarat, Sáenz-Ravello Gustavo, et al. · BMC oral health · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.1186/s12903-026-07816-7
Findings
Population Severely atrophic edentulous maxilla (zygomatic implant placement; in vitro models and patients)
9 findings
| Robotic-assisted computer-aided implant surgery (r-CAIS) | None (single-mean model) | Exit deviation (mm) | Pooled mean 1.47 [1.07, 1.87] GRADE not reported 9 studies · 161 ZIs participants |
| Robotic-assisted computer-aided implant surgery (r-CAIS) | None (single-mean model) | Entry deviation (mm) | Pooled mean 1.04 [0.74, 1.35] GRADE not reported 9 studies · 161 ZIs participants |
| Robotic-assisted computer-aided implant surgery (r-CAIS) | None (single-mean model) | Angular deviation (degrees) | Pooled mean 1.22 [0.82, 1.62] GRADE not reported 9 studies · 161 ZIs participants |
| Dynamic computer-aided implant surgery (d-CAIS) | None (single-mean model) | Angular deviation (degrees) | Pooled mean 2.00 [1.33, 2.67] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 97 ZIs participants |
| Dynamic computer-aided implant surgery (d-CAIS) | None (single-mean model) | Entry deviation (mm) | Pooled mean 1.30 [1.00, 1.60] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 97 ZIs participants |
| Dynamic computer-aided implant surgery (d-CAIS) | None (single-mean model) | Exit deviation (mm) | Pooled mean 2.02 [1.81, 2.23] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 97 ZIs participants |
| Robotic-assisted computer-aided implant surgery (r-CAIS) | Dynamic computer-aided implant surgery (d-CAIS) | Exit deviation (mm) | MD -0.51 [-1.24, 0.21] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 94 (47 per arm, ICC-adjusted) participants |
| Robotic-assisted computer-aided implant surgery (r-CAIS) | Dynamic computer-aided implant surgery (d-CAIS) | Angular deviation (degrees) | MD -0.58 [-1.21, 0.04] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 94 (47 per arm, ICC-adjusted) participants |
| Robotic-assisted computer-aided implant surgery (r-CAIS) | Dynamic computer-aided implant surgery (d-CAIS) | Entry deviation (mm) | MD -0.47 [-0.91, -0.04] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 94 (47 per arm, ICC-adjusted) participants |
Included primary studies 10
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fan 2018 Refractoriness to muscarinic and adrenergic agonists in the rat parotid: responses of adenosine and guanosine cyclic 3', 5'-monophosphates. PMID:201829 | 1977 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Al-Jarsha 2024 Dynamic navigation-guided robotic placement of zygomatic implants. PMID:39542079 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Cao 2020 Pilot study of a surgical robot system for zygomatic implant placement. PMID:31677890 | 2020 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Chen 2024 Accuracy of Zygomatic Implant Placement Using Task-Autonomous Robotic System or Dynamic Navigation: An In Vitro Study. PMID:39442545 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Deng 2023 (clinical) Feasibility and accuracy of a task-autonomous robot for zygomatic implant placement. PMID:38016868 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Deng 2023 (in vitro) Semi-autonomous two-stage dental robotic technique for zygomatic implants: An in vitro study. PMID:37666465 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Fan 2024 A hybrid robotic system for zygomatic implant placement based on mixed reality navigation. PMID:38555744 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Guo 2024 Comparison of robotic system and dynamic navigation for zygomatic implant placement: An in vitro study. PMID:39243803 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Li 2023 Autonomous robotic surgery for zygomatic implant placement and immediately loaded implant-supported full-arch prosthesis: a preliminary… PMID:37204483 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Olivetto 2023 Zygomatic implant placement using a robot-assisted flapless protocol: proof of concept. PMID:36517307 | 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 | Shared studies | Jaccard |
|---|---|---|
| A Meta-analysis of Oral Health Interventions in Children: Impacts on Knowledge, Behaviour, and Clinical Outcomes. (2026) | 1 | 0.02 |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Patients with severely atrophic edentulous maxilla | 185 zygomatic implants in 83 models/patients (75 models with 171 implants; 8 patients with 14 implants) |
| Intervention | Zygomatic implant placement using robotic-assisted CAIS (r-CAIS) | r-CAIS (161 implants in meta-analysis) |
| Comparison | s-CAIS, d-CAIS, non-guided CAIS or non-comparison | d-CAIS (97 implants in meta-analysis); no comparison in non-comparative studies |
| Outcomes | Three-dimensional deviations (entry, exit, angular) between planned and placed zygomatic implant | Entry, exit and angular deviation (pooled means and mean differences) |
| Study designs | All primary studies: clinical (RCTs, cohorts, case-control, case series, technical notes), model and cadaver studies | 10 studies: 7 in vitro, 2 clinical, 1 hybrid experimental-clinical (9 in meta-analysis) |
| 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 | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | No | no |
| 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 | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: Yes | NRSI: Yes · RCT: N/A | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: Yes | NRSI: Yes · RCT: N/A | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Moderate | Low | no |