Page 29 - Demo

2Robot Technology in dentistry, literature characteristics27Table 7. Total number of articles with their respective Technological Readiness Levels (TRL) within the different fields of dentistry. Discovery Development Demonstration DeploymentNumber of articles per field (%)TRL 1 TRL 2 TRL 3 TRL 4 TRL 5 TRL 6 TRL 7 TRL 8TRL 9Orthodontics2 [19, 43] 7 [36, 44-49]2 [50, 51]9 [16, 26-33]20 (24.1%)Implantology4 [52-55] 11 [17, 18, 22, 56-63]1 [64] 16 (19.3%)Prosthodontics1 [65] 9 [20, 66-73]10 (12.0%)Restorative dentistry1 [74] 5 [75-79]3 [4, 21, 80]9 (10.8%)Gnathology 5 [81-85] 2 [41, 42]7(8.4%)Education of students1 [86] 2 [37, 87]2 [38, 39]1 [40] 6 (7.2%)General practice1 [88] 4 [89-92]5 (6.0%)Education of patients1 [93] 1 [23] 2 [34, 35] 4(4.8%)Endodontics4[94-97]4 (4.8%)Dental radiology1 [24] 1 [25] 2 (2.4%)Number of articles per TRL (%)1 (1.2%)11 (13.3%)35 (42.2%)13 (15.7%)3 (3.6%) 5 (6.0%)4 (4.8%) 11 (13.3%)Number of articles per TRL group (%)47 (56.6%)21 (25.3%)4 (4.8%) 11 (13.3%)The present study showed 94 articles concerning a wide array of interesting robot initiatives in all fields of dentistry. The largest group of articles (80%) was classified as basic research, either purely theoretical or applied. This means that the technique has not yet been compared to any existing techniques nor tested in, for example, a series of patients. Studies categorized in the clinical or epidemiological research groups were only found in the field of orthodontics, implantology and education. Reason for this might be the relative easiness of testing on patients in most these groups, in which direct interaction of a robot with patients is unnecessary. Tom van Riet.indd 27 26-10-2023 11:59