Table 1.
Demographic, characteristics and accuracy details (Invitro studies).
| S.NO. | Author, country, year | Study design | Objective | Number of models | Number of implants | Robotic system used | Area of implant placement | Comparison | Coronal deviation | Apical deviation | Angular deviation | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Jin X, South korea, (2022)18 | Invitro | To evaluate the tracking accuracy of a robot-guided implant surgery system and compare the spatial accuracy of robot-assisted implant surgery with that of static stent guided implant surgery for implant placement | 4 | 14 | Autonomous (da Vinci) Robotic system | 3-D printed mandible model | Robotic vs static | Robotic (0.61 ± 0.29) vs static (0.49 ± 0.39) | Robotic (0.50 ± 0.14) vs static (0.72 ± 0.34) | Robotic (2.38 ± 0.62) vs static (3.16 ± 2.36) | Accuracy in implant placement using robot-assisted implant surgery was comparable to that of static-guided surgery |
| 2. | Tao B, China, (2022)19 | Invitro | To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a dynamic navigation and a robotic system. | 80 | 480 | Hybrid robotic system | 3-D printed mandible model | Robotic vs dynamic | Robotic (0.83 ± 0.55) vs Dynamic (0.96 ± 0.57) | Robotic (0.96 ± 0.57) vs Dynamic (1.06 ± 0.59) | Robotic (1 ± 0.48) vs Dynamic (2.41 ± 1.42) | Implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system |
| 3. | Chen, China, (2023)20 | Invitro | To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment | 10 | 20 | THETA robotic system | 3-D printed mandible model | Robotic vs dynamic | Robotic (0.46 ± 0.29) vs Dynamic (0.70 ± 0.21) | Robotic (0.56 ± 0.30) vs Dynamic (0.85 ± 0.25) | Robotic (1.36 ± 0.54) vs Dynamic (3.44 ± 1.38) | Implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system, especially the angular deviation was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system |
| 4. | Chen, Zhuong, China, (2023)8 | Invitro | To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement in a single tooth gap, including the postextraction site and healed site, using a task-autonomous robotic system and a dynamic navigation system. | 40 | 80 | Remebot robotic system | 3-D printed maxilla model | Robotic vs dynamic | Robotic (0.58 ± 0.31) vs dynamic (0.73 ± 0.20) | Robotic (0.69 ± 0.29) v/s Dynamic (0.86 ± 0.33) | Robotic (1.08 ± 0.66) vs Dynamic (2.32 ± 0.71) | The position in both immediate and conventional implant placement was more precise with the task-autonomous robotic system than with the dynamic navigation system |