# Impact of Implant Site and Bone Quality on the Accuracy of Robot‐Assisted Implant Placement: A Retrospective Study

## TL;DR

This study shows that the location of dental implants and the quality of bone affect the accuracy of robot-assisted implant placement.

## Contribution

The study identifies specific implant sites and bone qualities that impact robotic implant accuracy.

## Key findings

- Implants in the upper-anterior region had greater vertical deviations compared to the lower-posterior region.
- Implants in Type III–IV bone showed higher vertical deviations than those in Type I–II bone.
- Angular deviation trends were higher in Type III–IV bone but not significantly different by implant site.

## Abstract

Robot‐assisted surgery is widely used in implant dentistry; however, the specific effects of implant site and bone quality on its accuracy require further elucidation.

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of implant site and bone quality on the accuracy of a single robotic‐assisted implant placement method.

This retrospective analysis included 83 patients who received 173 implants via a robot‐assisted system. Implants were categorized by site into upper‐anterior (UA), upper‐posterior (UP), lower‐anterior (LA), and lower‐posterior (LP) regions and by bone quality into Type I–II and Type III–IV. Postoperative accuracy was assessed by comparing the planned versus actual implant positions, measuring lateral coronal deviation (LCD), vertical coronal deviation (VCD), and global coronal deviation (GCD); lateral apical deviation (LAD), vertical apical deviation (VAD), and global apical deviation (GAD); and angular deviation (AD).

When analyzed by implant site, the UA region demonstrated significantly larger vertical deviations (VCD and VAD) compared to the LP region (VCD: 0.99 ± 0.46 mm vs. 0.25 ± 0.53 mm, p  < 0.05; VAD: 0.95 ± 0.46 mm vs. 0.24 ± 0.53 mm, p  < 0.05). AD did not differ significantly among the various implant sites. Regarding bone quality, however, implants in Type III–IV bone exhibited significantly greater vertical deviations than those in Type I–II bone (VCD and VAD: 0.67 ± 0.56 mm vs. 0.27 ± 0.49 mm, p  < 0.05). Moreover, a trend toward a larger AD was also noted in Type III–IV bone (1.53 ± 1.09° vs. 1.18 ± 0.80°).

Both implant site and bone quality were found to influence the accuracy of the single robotic‐assisted system.