ArticleInternational dental journal2026
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of an AI-assisted, Dual-Template Workflow in Improving the Accuracy of Tooth Autotransplantation.
Article in International dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI-Assisted Dual-Template Workflow in Tooth Autotransplantation: A Promising Step Toward Precision Dentistry.International dental journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo test whether an AI-assisted, dual-template workflow improves plan-delivery accuracy in tooth autotransplantation versus a replica-only freehand approach.
methodsTwenty-four consecutive cases were assigned to a guided workflow (n = 12) or freehand (n = 12). In the guided group, AI-driven CBCT segmentation informed a socket-preparation guide, a socket-margin guide, and a printed donor-tooth replica; the freehand group used the replica alone. Immediate postoperative CBCT was rigidly registered to the plan. The prespecified primary endpoint was buccolingual angular deviation (BLAD). Secondary, exploratory endpoints included centre deviation distance (CDD), index-point distances at crown and root (IPDD-C/IPDD-R), long-axis (LAD), mesiodistal (MDAD) and rotational (RAD) deviations, and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Group differences were tested with t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests.
resultsThe guided workflow yielded significantly lower BLAD than the freehand approach. Secondary analyses showed concordant reductions in rotational deviation and linear centring errors, with greater volumetric plan-achievement overlap. Long-axis deviation showed a modest, non-significant improvement, and mesiodistal deviation did not differ between groups.
conclusionsAn AI-assisted dual-template workflow improves plan-delivery fidelity in tooth autotransplantation, with the largest gains in buccolingual orientation and rotational control, alongside better coronal centring and increased volumetric concordance. Apical deviation was also reduced, whereas mesiodistal alignment was unchanged. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: By constraining trajectory and socket margins, the guided workflow standardizes preparation and supports more predictable positioning of the transplanted tooth.
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.