ArticleClinical oral implants research2026
Clinical Applicability of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Implant Planning and Surgical Guide Design in the Maxillary Esthetic Zone: A Registry-Based Cohort Study.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluated the accuracy, time efficiency, and workflow consistency of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted versus human expert (HI) implant planning in the esthetic anterior maxilla. MATERIAL AND
methodsThirty-five single-tooth anterior maxillary cases with paired cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral scans (IOS) were retrospectively recruited. A hybrid AI framework (Relu Automate), integrating rule-based constraints (≥ 2 mm labial bone, ≥ 1 mm palatal bone) with deep learning segmentation, was compared with conventional HI. The performance of each planning approach was evaluated based on the following: coronal and apical linear deviations, angular deviation, bone thickness, wax-up alignment, surgical guide fit, planning time, and consistency. Statistical analyses were performed with a significance level of 5% (α = 0.05).
resultsAI-assisted planning demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy with mean coronal, apical, and angular deviations of 0.96 ± 0.6 mm, 1.24 ± 0.66 mm, and 4.3° ± 2.9°, respectively, meeting clinical thresholds in 94.3% (coronal), 85.7% (apical), and 94.3% (angular) of cases. Bone thickness measurements were equivalent between groups (labial: 2.0 mm for both groups; palatal: 1.5 mm AI versus 1.3 mm HI; p > 0.05). AI-assisted planning decreased the median planning time by 41.4% (p < 0.0001) while achieving perfect consistency compared to human experts (p < 0.05). ICC analysis revealed excellent agreement (≥ 0.9) across all spatial coordinates between AI and HI planning.
conclusionsAI-assisted implant planning achieved accuracy comparable to expert planning with improved efficiency and consistency, while AI-designed surgical guides demonstrated fit comparable to human-designed guides in the maxillary esthetic zone.
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.