ReviewBiomedical engineering and computational biology2026
Accuracy and Functional Performance of Artificial Intelligence-Based Automated Crown Design Systems: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Biomedical engineering and computational biology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven automated crown design is rapidly transforming digital restorative dentistry by enabling anatomically precise and functionally integrated crowns. This systematic review and meta-analysis critically evaluate whether AI-assisted crown design systems, including machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), generative adversarial networks (GANs), and diffusion models, produce restorations with comparable or superior morphological accuracy, occlusal integration, internal fit, and workflow efficiency relative to computer-aided design (CAD) or technician-driven workflows. Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted for studies published through 17 March 2026. Eligible studies included in vitro, in silico, and clinical investigations comparing AI-based crown design systems with conventional workflows. Primary outcomes were morphological accuracy root-mean-square (RMS) deviation, cusp morphology, volumetric/linear deviation, occlusal contact fidelity, and internal fit; secondary outcomes included marginal adaptation and restoration design time. Risk of bias was assessed using validated tools, and meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models with standardized mean differences (SMDs). Results: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 13 were included in the quantitative synthesis. AI-based systems achieved clinically acceptable morphological accuracy, internal fit, and occlusal contact reproduction (RMS deviation: SMD = -0.15, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.74). Workflow efficiency improved significantly, with reductions in design time of 25-50% and enhanced precision in chamfer and marginal gaps (p < 0.001). DL and GAN-based platforms consistently produced crowns within clinically acceptable deviation ranges (<100-200 μm). Integration of patient-specific occlusal and mandibular dynamics further enhanced functional occlusal prediction. Expert technician refinement remained beneficial in anatomically complex cases. Conclusions: AI-assisted crown design demonstrates promising potential for providing reproducible, morphologically accurate, and functionally integrated restorations while potentially enhancing workflow efficiency. This review underscores the potential of AI systems to standardize restorative outcomes and reduce operator dependency, while combined human-AI workflows may enhance performance in complex cases. However, the current evidence is derived predominantly from in vitro and computational studies, with limited prospective clinical validation, limited integration of patient-specific dynamic occlusal data, and insufficient long-term follow-up evidence. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted cautiously and not considered definitive evidence of clinical superiority over conventional workflows. Standardized clinical protocols and prospective trials are required to confirm long-term efficacy.
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.