Comparison of Accuracy and Operation Time in Robotic, Dynamic, and Static-Assisted Endodontic Microsurgery: An In Vitro Study

Abstract

IntroductionThis study aimed to compare the accuracy and operation time (OT) of robotic-assisted endodontic microsurgery (RA-EMS), dynamic navigation-guided (DN-guided) EMS, and static navigation-guided (SN-guided) EMS. MethodsSeventy-two teeth from three sets of standardized jaw models (TrueTooth, DELendo, Santa Barbara, CA) randomly assigned into 3 groups underwent osteotomy and root-end resection. Preoperative plans and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography images were imported into an accuracy analysis system and aligned based on the anatomical structures to assess accuracy. The OT was recorded from the moment the foot pedal was pressed down until the bur reached the target depth. Statistical analyses were conducted using Kruskal–Wallis and Scheirer–Ray–Hare tests, with significance set at P < .05. ResultsRA-EMS exhibited significantly higher accuracy than DN- and SN-guided EMS in terms of platform, angular, and resection angular deviations (P < .05). Additionally, RA-EMS exhibited significantly higher accuracy than DN-guided EMS in resection length deviation (P < .05). Significant differences were also observed in OTs between the 3 approaches, with SN-guided EMS showing the shortest OT, followed by RA-EMS and DN-guided EMS. Differences in jaw types within the DN-guided EMS group were observed in terms of angular deviation (P < .05). ConclusionsAll 3 treatment approaches demonstrated acceptable clinical accuracy and OT. RA-EMS exhibited superior accuracy, suggesting its potential application prospects in endodontics. Further high-quality clinical studies are warranted.