ReviewCureus2026
Robot-Assisted Dentistry: What the Evidence Supports and Which Outcomes Are Still Missing.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dentistry has rapidly adopted digitally planned workflows, supported by cone-beam computed tomography, intraoral scanning, and virtual planning, expanding computer-assisted implant surgery through static guides, dynamic navigation, and robotic guidance. However, dental robotics is used inconsistently, and conflating robotics with navigation or automation can obscure key mechanistic and safety differences. This narrative review aimed to provide a clinically grounded synthesis of dental robotics across specialties, with emphasis on workflow dependencies, outcome patterns, and translational constraints. A structured literature search was conducted up to March 2026 using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Evidence was synthesized thematically, prioritizing clinical outcomes like accuracy, complications, peri-implant parameters, survival, patient- or provider-reported outcomes, workflow data, and implementation considerations. The most mature clinical evidence concerns robot-assisted implant placement, in which high agreement between planned and achieved positions was observed. Yet, accuracy should be interpreted as workflow performance influenced by imaging, planning, registration, tracking stability, and intraoperative conditions. Comparative data suggest the clearest gains versus freehand placement, while early adoption may increase operative time due to added setup and verification steps. Outside implantology, robotics follows distinct trajectories, including robotic orthodontic archwire bending, aligner-related automation, and transoral robotic surgery in maxillofacial practice, underscoring the need to appraise domains using different outcome hierarchies. Restorative and prosthodontic applications are emerging, ranging from robot-guided tooth preparation for crowns, onlays, and veneers to laboratory robotics for manufacturing, yet these remain largely industrial. Across domains, a recurring limitation is the mismatch between commonly reported geometric accuracy endpoints and underreported clinically decisive outcomes, which include complications, patient-reported outcomes, long-term maintenance, and economic value. Cost remains a major barrier, and formal cost-effectiveness evidence is limited.
Indexed as
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.