Clinical Evidence
Clinical Research
January 1, 2024
Robotic facilitation of ceramic implants in compromised alveolar ridges
Shepard DeLong, DMD
Read more
September 5, 2023
Flapless Dental Implant Surgery Enabled by Haptic Robotic Guidance: A Case Report
Mohamed Ali, DDS
Read more
September 6, 2022
Robotic-Assisted Dental Implant Placement Technology: Overview, Implementation, and Case Report
Bruce Smoler, DDS, FAGD, FICOI
Read more
December 2, 2021
Yomi Dental Robotics: Robotic Accuracy with Same-Day Surgery
Jody Griffin, DDS
Read more
Clinical evidence
- A pilot study of postoperative pain felt after two implant surgery techniques: a randomized blinded prospective clinical study. Parmigiani-Izquierdo JM, Sánchez-Pérez A, Cabaña-Muñoz ME. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Sep-Oct;28(5):1305-10. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3027.
- Alemzadeh H, Raman J, Leveson N, Kalbarczyk Z, Iyer RK. Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. PLoS One. 2016 Apr 20;11(4):e0151470. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151470.
- Computer-guided vs freehand placement of immediately loaded dental implants: 5-year postloading results of a randomised controlled trial. Tallarico M, Esposito M, Xhanari E, Caneva M, Meloni SM. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11(2):203-213.
- Effect of flapless surgery on pain experienced in implant placement using an image-guided system. Fortin T, Bosson JL, Isidori M, Blanchet E. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Mar-Apr;21(2):298-304.
- Flapless versus open flap implant surgery in partially edentulous patients subjected to immediate loading: 1-year results from a split-mouth randomised controlled trial. Cannizzaro G, Felice P, Leone M, Checchi V, Esposito M. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2011 Autumn;4(3):177-88.
- Flapless versus open flap implant surgery in partially edentulous patients subjected to immediate loading: 1-year results from a split-mouth randomised controlled trial. Cannizzaro G, Felice P, Leone M, Checchi V, Esposito M. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2011 Autumn;4(3):177-88.
- Giacomoni A, Concone G, Di Sandro S, Lauterio A, De Carlis L. The meaning of surgeon’s comfort in robotic surgery. Am J Surg. 2014 Nov;208(5):871-872. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.04.012.
- Granit Molliqaj, MD, Bawarjan Schatlo, MD, Awad Alaid, MD, Volodymyr Solomiichuk, MD, Veit Rohde, MD, Karl Schaller, MD, and Enrico Tessitore, MD Accuracy of robot-guided versus freehand fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery. Journal of Neurosurgery 2017 (Neurosurgical Focus)
- Implant Case Report (Responses) FM 13485 8.2.1-2
- Jay M. Neugarten DDS, MD, FACS (2024). Accuracy and Precision of Haptic Robotic-Guided Implant Surgery in Large Consecutive Series. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 39(1), 99-106
- Macke JJ, Woo R, Varich L.Accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the pediatric population. J Robot Surg. 2016 Jun;10(2):145-50. doi: 10.1007/s11701-016-0587-7. Epub 2016 Apr 12.
- Minimally invasive flapless implant surgery: a prospective multicenter study. Becker W, Goldstein M, Becker BE, Sennerby L. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7 Suppl 1:S21-7.
- Minimally invasive flapless vs. flapped approach for single implant placement: a 2-year randomized controlled clinical trial. Wang F, Huang W, Zhang Z, Wang H, Monje A, Wu Y. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Jun;28(6):757-764. doi: 10.1111/clr.12875.
- Open flap versus flapless placement of dental implants. A randomized controlled pilot trial. Jané-Salas E, Roselló-LLabrés X, Jané-Pallí E, Mishra S, Ayuso-Montero R, López-López J. Odontology. 2018 Jul;106(3):340-348. doi: 10.1007/s10266-018-0343-8. Epub 2018 Feb 20.
- “Park SJ, Leesungbok R, Cui T, et al: Reliability of a CAD/CAM surgical guide for implant placement: An in vitro comparison of surgeons’ experience levels and implant sites. Int J Prosthodont 30: 367, 2017”
- Parsons JK, Messer K, Palazzi K, Stroup SP, Chang D. Diffusion of surgical innovations, patient safety, and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. JAMA Surg. 2014 Aug;149(8):845-51. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.31.
- PR – 1002 RC – Distance Value at 95% Probability must be less than or equal to the upper specification limit of 1.00 mm.
- PR 1002 RC – Angular Error Value at 95% Probability must be less than or equal to the upper specification limit of 3.00 deg.
- RP 1167 RB – Per the Acceptance criteria described in PR-1002, the NGS is capable of performing under the upper specification limit for Lateral (1.00 mm) and Angular (3.00°) accuracy, in all cases with 95% probability based upon adherence to the best fit statistical model.
- RP 1167 RB – Per the Acceptance criteria described in PR-1002, the NGS is capable of performing under the upper specification limit for Lateral (1.00 mm) and Angular (3.00°) accuracy, in all cases with 95% probability based upon adherence to the best fit statistical model.
- Simaan N, Yasin RM, Wang L. Medical technologies and challenges of robot-assisted minimally invasive intervention and diagnostics. Annu Rev Control Robot Auton Syst. 2018; 1:465–90. Doi: 10.1146/annurev-control-060117-104956.
- “Vermeulen J: The accuracy of implant placement by experienced surgeons: Guided vs freehand approach in a simulated plastic model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32:617, 2017”
Follow Us
@yomirobot