Skip to content
Field Notes

The research side of permaculture.studio.

Verification record

Every claim in this article was checked against the abstracts of the papers it cites, by a separate pass that was given those abstracts and nothing else. A claim marked supported carries the sentence that supports it, quoted verbatim below.

References
14
Claims checked
6
Fully supported
5
Checked on
Sep 29, 2026

Claim by claim

  1. A meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials covering 529 implants found robotic computer-assisted implant surgery achieved better positional trueness than free-hand surgery, rated moderate certainty.

    SupportedMeta-analysisMeta-analysis

    “Seven RCTs enrolling 529 implants were included. Moderate-certainty evidence demonstrated significantly improved positional trueness with r-CAIS over FHIS across all deviation parameters”

    The abstract fully supports that the meta-analysis included seven RCTs with 529 implants and found moderate-certainty evidence of improved positional trueness for robotic computer-assisted implant surgery over free-hand surgery.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 29, 2026

  2. The largest advantage over free-hand surgery was in angular deviation, with a mean difference of -4.56 degrees (95% CI -6.25 to -2.86).

    SupportedMeta-analysisMeta-analysis

    “Moderate-certainty evidence demonstrated significantly improved positional trueness with r-CAIS over FHIS across all deviation parameters, with the largest effect observed for angular deviation (MD = -4.56°; 95% CI -6.25 to -2.86).”

    The abstract directly confirms that the largest effect of r-CAIS over free-hand implant surgery (FHIS) was in angular deviation, with a mean difference of -4.56° (95% CI -6.25 to -2.86).

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 29, 2026

  3. Against dynamic computer-assisted surgery, robotic surgery showed a high-certainty angular deviation advantage of -0.77 degrees (95% CI -1.33 to -0.21), while platform and apical deviations did not differ significantly.

    SupportedMeta-analysisMeta-analysis

    “High certainty evidence showed a significant angular deviation advantage of r-CAIS over d-CAIS (MD = -0.77°; 95% CI: -1.33 to -0.21), while platform and apical deviations did not differ significantly.”

    The claim accurately reflects the findings and certainty ratings reported in the abstract.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 29, 2026

  4. All comparisons between robotic and static computer-assisted surgery were non-significant, rated low to very low certainty and drawn from a single small trial.

    SupportedMeta-analysisMeta-analysis

    “All comparisons with s-CAIS were non-significant, rated low to very low certainty from a single small trial.”

    The abstract directly states that all comparisons between robotic computer-assisted implant surgery and static computer-assisted implant surgery were non-significant and rated low to very low certainty from a single small trial.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 29, 2026

  5. Operative time evidence was very low certainty and precluded any directional conclusion, and the review found no evidence that improved trueness translated into better clinical or patient-reported outcomes.

    SupportedMeta-analysisMeta-analysis

    “Operative time evidence was very low certainty, precluding any directional conclusion. Early implant retention ranged from 93.3% to 100% across all modalities with no meaningful between-group differences.Conclusionsr-CAIS improves implant positional trueness compared with free-hand surgery, supported by moderate certainty evidence, with a high certainty angular deviation advantage over dynamic navigation. However, improved trueness has not been shown to translate into better clinical or patient-reported outcomes.”

    The abstract explicitly confirms both that operative time evidence was very low certainty, precluding directional conclusions, and that improved trueness has not been shown to translate into better clinical or patient-reported outcomes.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 29, 2026

  6. A separate randomized clinical trial of 36 patients found robotic surgery more accurate than static guides but roughly twice the surgery time and greater intraoperative patient discomfort.

    Partially supportedUnclassifiedUnclassified. The study design could not be determined automatically.

    “The rCAIS provides superior implant placement accuracy compared to sCAIS but is associated with longer procedures and increased patient discomfort.”

    The claim generalizes the findings to robotic surgery and static guides broadly, whereas the trial was specifically limited to dental implant placement for posterior single-tooth restorations.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 29, 2026

What this does and does not prove

It proves that every DOI cited resolves to a real registered work whose returned DOI matches the one requested, that none of them is retracted, and that each claim has a named sentence in a cited abstract behind it.

It does not prove that the paper as a whole supports the claim. An abstract can overstate its own findings, and a sentence can be read out of context. That is why the quote is printed here rather than summarised: if the check is wrong, you can see that it is wrong.

Evidence grading is automatic and conservative. Anything it cannot classify is marked unclassified rather than flattered upward.