To provide dental practitioners and researchers with a comprehensive and transparent evidence-based overview of physical robot initiatives in all fields of dentistry. Articles published since 1985 concerning primary data on physical robot technology in dentistry were selected. Characteristics of the papers were extracted such as the respective field of dentistry, year of publication as well as a description of its usage. Bibliographic databases PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched. A hand search through reference lists of all included articles was performed. The search timeline was between January 1985 and October 2020. All types of scientific literature in all languages were included concerning fields of dentistry ranging from student training to implantology. Robot technology solely for the purpose of research and maxillofacial surgery were excluded. In total, 94 articles were included in this systematic review. This study provides a systematic overview of initiatives using robot technology in dentistry since its very beginning. While there were many interesting robot initiatives reported, the overall quality of the literature, in terms of clinical validation, is low. Scientific evidence regarding the benefits, results and cost-efficiency of commercially available robotic solutions in dentistry is lacking. The rise in availability of open source control systems, compliant robot systems and the design of dentistry-specific robot technology might facilitate the process of technological development in the near future. The authors are confident that robotics will provide useful solutions in the future but, strongly, encourage an evidence-based approach when adapting to new (robot) technology.

To provide dental practitioners and researchers with a comprehensive and transparent evidence-based overview of the characteristics of literature regarding initiatives of robot technology in dentistry. All articles in which robot technology in dentistry is described, except for non-scientific articles and articles containing secondary data (reviews). Amongst others, the following data were extracted: type of study, level of technological readiness, authors' professional background and the subject of interaction with the robot. Bibliographic databases PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were surveyed. A reference search was conducted. The search timeline was between January 1985 and October 2020. A total of 911 articles were screened on title and abstract of which 161 deemed eligible for inclusion. Another 71 articles were excluded mainly because of unavailability of full texts or the sole use of secondary data (reviews). Four articles were included after hand searching the reference lists. In total, 94 articles were included for analysis. Since 2013 an average of six articles per year concern robot initiatives in dentistry, mostly originating from East Asia (57%). The vast majority of research was categorized as either basic theoretical or basic applied research (80%). Technology readiness levels did not reach higher than three (proof of concept) in 55% of all articles. In 84%, the first author of the included articles had a technical background and in 36%, none of the authors had a dental or medical background. The overall quality of literature, especially in terms of clinical validation, should be considered as low.

Ho JT, et al. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2021 Dec;21(6):507-525. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2021.21.6.507

Orthognathic surgery is a widely performed procedure to correct dentofacial deformities. Virtual treatment planning is an important preparation step. One advantage of the use of virtual treatment planning is the possibility to assess the accuracy of orthognathic surgery. In this study, a tool (OrthoGnathicAnalyser 2.0), which allows for quantification of the accuracy of orthognathic surgery, is presented and validated. In the OrthoGnathicAnalyser 2.0 the accuracy of the osseous chin can now be assessed which was not possible in the earlier version of the OrthoGnathicAnalyser. 30 patients who underwent bimaxillary surgery in combination with a genioplasty were selected from three different centers in the Netherlands. A pre-operative (CB)CT scan, virtual treatment planning and postoperative (CB)CT scan were required for assessing the accuracy of bimaxillary surgery. The preoperative and postoperative (CB)CT scans were aligned using voxel-based matching. Furthermore, voxel-based matching was used to align the pre-operative maxilla, mandible and rami towards their postoperative position whereas surface-based matching was used for aligning the pre-operative chin towards the postoperative position. The alignment resulted in a transformation matrix which contained the achieved translations and rotations. The achieved translations and rotations can be compared to planning values of the virtual treatment plan. To study the reproducibility, two independent observers processed all 30 patients to assess the inter-observer variability. One observer processed the patients twice to assess the intra-observer variability. Both the intra- and inter-observer variability showed high ICC values (> 0.92) and low measurement variations (< 0.673±0.684mm and < 0.654±0.824°). The results of this study show that the OrthoGnathicAnalyser 2.0 has an excellent reproducibility for quantification of skeletal movements between two (CB)CT scans.

Purpose: The goal of this review is to provide sleep physicians, dentists, and researchers with an evidence-based overview of the literature on smart mandibular advancement devices (MADs) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted by two blinded reviewers and an information specialist. A smart MAD was defined as any MAD with additional functionality besides mandibular protrusion. The bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, and Scopus were used to identify relevant publications. Studies were included if they described any stage of development of smart MADs. A total of 3162 titles and abstracts were screened for their relevance. In total, 58 articles were selected for full-text screening, 26 of which were included in this review. Results: The overall quality of the available literature was low. Most of the studies were observational, clinical or applied-research articles. The authors classified MADs into two main groups: passive and active. Passive MADs measured patient data, most commonly patient compliance. Active MADs adjusted protrusion of the mandible in response to patient data and were found in various phases of technological readiness (in development, demonstration, or deployment). Conclusion: Innovations in smart mandibular advancement devices most frequently track patient compliance. Devices measuring other health parameters and active, feedback-controlled, devices are increasingly reported on. However, studies demonstrating their added benefit over traditional methods remain sparse. With further study, smart mandibular advancement devices have the potential to improve the efficiency of obstructive sleep apnea treatment and provide new treatment possibilities.

This retrospective study aimed to: (1) investigate the surgical accuracy of maxillomandibular advancement (MMA) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients, with a specific focus on maxillary and mandibular advancement and counter-clockwise rotation and (2) investigate the correlation between the amount of achieved advancement and the reduction in the relative apnea hypopnea index (AHI). Sixteen patients, for whom a three-dimensional virtual surgical plan was generated preoperatively and a computed tomography scan (CT) or cone-beam computer tomography (CBCT) was acquired postoperatively, were included. The postoperative CT or CBCT was compared to the virtual surgical plan, and differences in the mandibular and maxillary advancement and counter-clockwise rotation were assessed. Maxillary and mandibular advancement (median 3.1 mm, p = 0.002 and 2.3 mm, p = 0.03, respectively) and counter-clockwise rotation (median 3.7°, p = 0.006 and 4.7°, p = 0.001, respectively) were notably less than intended. A significant correlation was found between the planned maxillary advancement and the difference between the planned and actual maxillary advancement (p = 0.048; adjusted R² = 0.1979) and also between the planned counter-clockwise rotation and the difference between the planned and actual counter-clockwise rotation for the mandible (p = 0.012; adjusted R² = 0.3261). Neither the maxilla-first nor the mandible-first surgical sequence proved to be superior in terms of the ability to achieve the intended movements (p > 0.45). Despite a significant reduction (p = 0.001) in the apnea hypopnea index (AHI) from a median of 62.6 events/h to 19.4 events/h following MMA, no relationship was found between the extent of maxillary or mandibular advancement and AHI improvement in this small cohort (p = 0.389 and p = 0.387, respectively). This study underlines the necessity for surgeons and future research projects to be aware of surgical inaccuracies in MMA procedures for OSA patients. Additionally, further research is required to investigate if sufficient advancement is an important factor associated with MMA treatment outcome.