ArticleClinical oral implants research2025
Artificial Intelligence Versus Human Intelligence in Presurgical Implant Planning: A Preclinical Validation.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Learning Based on Swin-Transformer and 3D U-Net: Implant Three-Dimensional Position Planning.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Clinical Applicability of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Implant Planning and Surgical Guide Design in the Maxillary Esthetic Zone: A Registry-Based Cohort Study.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
- Acceptability, deviation, and efficiency of automated artificial intelligence-based implant planning methods: A comparison with human intelligence.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Article
- Automating virtual dental implant planning: can artificial intelligence match clinical expertise?Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Implant Dentistry: Clinical Validity, Diagnostic Performance, Surgical Planning, and Medico-Legal Implications-A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- AI-Assisted Identification of the Medial Lingual Foramen on CBCT: A Deep Learning Approach for Preoperative Implant Assessment.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Article
- Innovations in Implant Osseointegration: Biomaterials, Surface Engineering, and Translational Strategies.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2026Review
- Cumulative Error in Digital Workflows for Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- [Assistance and breakthrough of digitalization and intelligent digitalization in implant restoration of edentulous jaws].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2026Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in oral health management: challenges and opportunities.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- A Deep Metric Learning and Multimodal Gated Fusion Framework for AI-Driven Risk Assessment of Lingual Plate Perforation and Mandibular Canal Injury in Posterior Mandible Implants.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- AI-assisted preoperative surgical planning for dental implant.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo validate an innovative artificial intelligence (AI)-driven tool for automated virtual implant placement by comparing its accuracy, implant dimension selection, time efficiency, and consistency with a human intelligence (HI)-based approach for single posterior tooth replacement. MATERIALS AND
methodsA dataset of 50 time-matched cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral scans with a single missing posterior mandibular tooth was selected to validate a pre-trained AI model for virtual implant placement against a HI-based approach. A quantitative comparison of implant location and implant dimension selection was conducted between AI and HI, and a qualitative three-dimensional evaluation was conducted by three implant dentistry specialists using a visual analog scale and a Turing test to assess and distinguish between AI and HI. Additionally, time consumption and consistency were evaluated.
resultsExperts found that approximately 89% of AI-planned and 93% of HI-planned implants were clinically acceptable, with the planning method unidentifiable in 58% of AI cases. AI selected implant dimensions of 11.7 mm (1.3) in length and 4.0 mm (0.3) in diameter, close to experts' selections of 11.5 mm (1.3) and 4.2 mm (0.4). AI was over twice as fast, reducing planning time to 187 s (34) compared to 406 s (68) for HI (p < 0.0001), and demonstrated high consistency with a median surface deviation (MSD) of zero, while intra- and inter-operator MSDs were 0.33 mm (0.14) and 0.56 mm (0.34), respectively (p < 0.0001).
conclusionsArtificial intelligence is reliable for virtual implant placement in missing mandibular (pre)molars, producing clinically acceptable plans comparable to human experts while operating faster and much more consistently than implant clinicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.