ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2026
Automating virtual dental implant planning: can artificial intelligence match clinical expertise?
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 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.
- 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
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
objectivesThis study evaluated a validated artificial intelligence (AI) tool for virtual implant planning by comparing its performance with expert-planned and clinically placed implants in single-tooth rehabilitation cases.
methodsPre- and postoperative cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans were retrospectively collected from 32 single-tooth implant cases. Actual implants were placed by expert clinicians using a human intelligence (HI)-based approach guided by the preoperative CBCT. The same scans were used to generate both AI- and HI-based virtual implant plans. Pre- and postoperative scans were registered to allow accurate comparison between placed and planned implants. Three plans were evaluated per case: clinically placed implant (HI-place), HI-planned implant (HI-plan), and AI-planned implant (AI). Evaluations included angular deviation relative to adjacent teeth and prosthetic wax-ups, vertical and horizontal bone thickness, proximity to vital structures, implant dimensions, planning time, and planning repeatability.
resultsThe Friedman test indicated no significant differences in implant location among the 3 approaches (P > .05). Angular deviations were similar across methods for both the neighboring tooth (HI-place = 7.01 ± 4.7°; HI-plan = 7.30 ± 5.6°; AI = 6.86 ± 3.7°) and the wax-up (HI-place = 5.22 ± 3.0°; HI-plan = 4.55 ± 3.0°; AI = 5.50 ± 4.9°). Implant diameter and length selections also did not differ significantly across HI-place (4.06 ± 0.4 mm; 10.61 ± 1.4 mm), HI-plan (4.06 ± 0.4 mm; 10.45 ± 1.4 mm), and AI (4.05 ± 0.5 mm; 10.39 ± 1.4 mm). AI was significantly faster (P < .05), requiring 150 s vs 429 s for HI-plan, and showed excellent repeatability with zero deviation between repeated plans.
conclusionsAI-driven virtual implant planning achieved clinically acceptable placement comparable to expert clinicians in single-implant rehabilitation, with superior efficiency and repeatability, supporting its use in routine presurgical workflows. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Integrating AI for implant location and dimensions selection, with accuracy comparable to expert clinicians, can streamline the digital implant workflow, reduce planning time, and allow clinicians to focus on verifying the AI-generated plan prior to clinical transfer, thereby increasing the time available for the actual treatment procedure.
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.