Interview: Miniature intra-oral robot could transform restorative dentistry workflows

Franziska Beier, Dental Tribune International

Thu. 23. July 2026

share

save

New research has explored how a miniature intra-oral robot could support more precise, more predictable and less invasive tooth preparation. The idea and clinical vision behind the device—referred to as the MIR in the study—originated with Prof. Ronald Jung of the University of Zurich in Switzerland, and a prototype has been developed with the Swiss universities of Basel and Bern as part of a project supported by the Swiss Innovation Agency. In this interview, Prof. Jung discusses the potential clinical benefits of the MIR, explains the design challenges of working in the confined intra-oral space and outlines the next steps needed before such a system could be used in dental practice.

Prof. Jung, your project suggests that the MIR could make tooth preparation more precise and predictable. From a clinical perspective, where do you see the greatest potential benefit for dentists and patients?
The greatest potential, in our view, lies in making the entire restorative workflow more predictable—not only the tooth preparation itself. The development of the MIR is therefore not just about tooth preparation; it is about revolutionising the workflow in dentistry for restoring a tooth with a crown, an overlay, an inlay or a veneer.

This could lead to several clinical benefits. First, it could reduce invasiveness for patients because the system enables highly personalised treatment by removing only the tooth structure specified in the digital plan. In contrast, conventional manual tooth preparation is inherently dependent on the clinician’s visual assessment and manual skills, often resulting in greater variability in the amount of tooth structure removed.

Second, it could improve patient comfort by reducing the number of appointments needed for a dental restoration and by reducing overall chairside time. Third, it could increase patient confidence. In the intended workflow, both the dentist and the patient would be able to evaluate the definitive restoration before the tooth is prepared. This could reduce the need for additional impressions or scans, provisional restorations and chairside waiting time. Another potential advantage is that the robot is fixed to the jaw and moves with it, which could reduce the influence of patient head movement during preparation.

Prof. Ronald Jung is director of the Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry at the University of Zurich. (Image: Prof. Ronald Jung)

What are some of the greatest challenges in designing a tooth preparation robot, particularly regarding form and function?
Earlier robotic systems in dentistry have mainly relied on large extra-oral robotic arms. Because these systems are not fixed directly to the dentition, they must continuously manage patient movement through tracking and compensation, creating an additional source of error and making high precision particularly challenging. In contrast, the MIR is compact enough to be fixed directly to the patient’s dentition, creating a stable point of reference that moves with the jaw. This could make tooth preparation more accurate and reproducible.

However, this intra-oral approach also posed engineering challenges. One of the main challenges was the limited space in the oral cavity. In the posterior region, mouth opening may be as small as 16–17 mm, so the robot had to be extremely compact. For this reason, the motors were placed outside the mouth and connected to the intra-oral part of the robot through flexible shafts.

At the start of the project, we realised that there was a lack of quantitative data on mouth opening in the molar region, despite its clinical relevance. We therefore conducted a clinical study at the Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry of the Center for Dental Medicine at the University of Zurich and measured mouth opening in 100 patients. This data helped define the maximum dimensions of the MIR.

In testing, the prototype achieved preparation accuracy in the micrometre range. How does this level of accuracy compare with what is currently achievable in conventional manual tooth preparation?

Our primary objective with this prototype was to demonstrate the feasibility of a miniature robotic concept for tooth preparation, in which the robot is fixed directly to the teeth and actuated by motors positioned outside the mouth. Because this first-generation prototype did not yet include sensors to monitor the bur position in real time, the system could not automatically correct positioning errors during preparation. At this stage, the measurements give an indication of the system’s potential, but they do not yet allow a direct comparison with conventional manual tooth preparation or other robotic systems.

In addition, the exact position and orientation of the bur after assembly with the dental handpiece have not yet been fully integrated into the robot’s movement calculations. Also, the robot was manually positioned at the centre of the test specimen before each experiment. This manual alignment introduced an additional source of error and affected the overall accuracy of the preparation.

“It is important for us to highlight that we do not see the robot as a replacement for the dentist.”

Before such a system could be used in dental practice, what are the key challenges that still need to be addressed, particularly regarding accuracy, real-time monitoring, intra-oral access, patient safety and the dentist’s role in supervising the procedure?
The next-generation prototype will focus on improving mechanical stability, defining the exact position of the bur within the device, and integrating position sensors and real-time feedback so that the bur can be controlled more accurately during preparation. A smart bite block will also be used to position the robot precisely and reproducibly relative to the tooth, reducing the variability associated with manual placement. Through these developments, we expect to improve the robot’s overall accuracy and support the intended fully digital workflow, in which the restoration can be prefabricated and achieve a clinically perfect fit.

Our aim is to integrate the MIR into the entire restorative process, from diagnostics and planning to tooth preparation, restoration fabrication and cementation. Further software development will be needed to support treatment planning, robot control, integration into the clinical process and sterilisation protocols. In addition, sensors and a camera will be required for real-time monitoring of the robot’s position and treatment progress.

As we move towards clinical application, patient safety will remain one of our central priorities and will be carefully evaluated throughout each stage of development and testing. It is clear to us that robotic treatment must be performed under the supervision of qualified dental personnel to ensure safe and effective clinical implementation.

The development of the MIR brought together expertise from clinical dentistry and engineering. How did this interdisciplinary approach help translate the concept into a working prototype?
The development of the MIR was the result of close collaboration between the Bio-Inspired RObots for MEDicine Laboratory at the University of Basel, led by Dr Georg Rauter; the University of Zurich’s Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, led by me; and the Neuro Robotics Group at the ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research at the University of Bern, led by Dr Manuela Eugster.

This project could not have been realised by one discipline alone. Therefore, I would like to highlight the close interdisciplinary collaboration between the engineering teams at the universities of Basel and Bern and the Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry. This project is an excellent example of how an idea that originated in the clinic can be translated into working technology in the laboratory.

This close integration of engineering development and clinical expertise was a key factor in the success of the MIR. Only through this collaboration has it been possible to continuously refine the system from both a technical and clinical perspective and to optimise its suitability for use in dentistry.

The MIR team, from left: Dr Murali Karnam, Prof. Ronald Jung, Dr Manuela Eugster, Dr Yukiko Tomooka, Dr Jenni Hjerppe, Carina Schmidt, Dr Marc Balmer and Dr Georg Rauter. (Image: University of Zurich)

Would you like to expand to other dental fields, such as implantology, in the future?
Yes. Our long-term vision is not to develop a stand-alone robotic device but to create an integrated robotic treatment platform that fits seamlessly into the digital workflow of everyday dental practice. The system would combine intra-oral scans, radiographic data and patient-specific treatment planning in order to carry out clearly defined clinical steps under the dentist’s supervision.

Although the current prototype focuses on automated tooth preparation, the same technological platform has considerable potential for a broad range of dental applications. These include implant site preparation, minimally invasive caries removal and access cavity preparation. Because of its miniature size and precision, the robot could help make these procedures more reproducible than is usually possible by hand.

It is important for us to highlight that we do not see the robot as a replacement for the dentist. Rather, we see it as an intelligent clinical assistant that can take over repetitive, highly standardised tasks, allowing dentists to devote more time to diagnosis, treatment planning, patient communication and clinical decision-making.

Topics:

Tags: