ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Robotic Surgical Systems in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Relevance. In recent years, robotic surgical technologies have been firmly integrated into the practice of many surgical specialties. However, their adoption in dentistry and maxillofacial surgery remains limited. This is largely due to the unique anatomical features of the facial region and the exceptionally high demands for precision and equipment adaptability. At the same time, the growing interest in minimally invasive and highly accurate surgical interventions underscores the need for a scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of such technologies. Objective. This study aimed to systematically review the available clinical evidence on the use of robot-assisted surgical systems in oral and maxillofacial procedures, focusing on their accuracy, safety, and clinical feasibility. Material and Methods: The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA methodology. Studies involving patients who underwent implant or other maxillofacial surgical procedures using robotic systems were included. A systematic search was performed via the Cochrane Library platform, which simultaneously searches MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase databases. The following keywords were used: (MeSH descriptor: [Robotics] explode all trees OR MeSH descriptor: [Robotic Surgical Procedures] explode all trees OR "robotic surgery":ti,ab,kw OR "robotic assisted":ti,ab,kw OR "robot":ti,ab,kw) AND ("maxillofacial surgery":ti,ab,kw OR "dental implant":ti,ab,kw OR "oral implantology":ti,ab,kw OR "oral surgery":ti,ab,kw). The level of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE, RoB 2.0, and ROBINS-I scales. Dual screening and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. The review protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD420251137197). Results: A total of 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. In nearly all studies, robotic systems demonstrated high implant placement accuracy (mean deviations less than 1 mm and 3°), substantially outperforming conventional techniques. The safety profile was consistently favorable. In transoral oncologic surgery, robotic systems showed comparable or superior functional outcomes. However, most studies were limited in sample size and follow-up duration, necessitating cautious interpretation of the results. Conclusions: Robot-assisted technologies in implantology and maxillofacial surgery have the potential to enhance precision and safety. Nevertheless, the overall certainty of evidence (GRADE) is rated as moderate to low. Larger-scale studies are required to confirm these findings.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.