ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Artificial intelligence prediction of implant placement difficulty based on bone morphology and anatomical constraints.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate preoperative assessment of implant placement difficulty is essential for effective surgical planning and minimizing complications. Conventional evaluation using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) relies heavily on clinician interpretation and is often subjective and operator-dependent. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a promising approach for objective and reproducible prediction of surgical complexity using quantitative imaging parameters. Objective: To develop and evaluate an AI-based model for predicting implant placement difficulty based on bone morphology and anatomical constraints derived from CBCT imaging. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted on 250 implant sites. Bone morphology parameters-including bone height, width, cortical thickness, and density-along with anatomical constraints such as proximity to vital structures, were assessed using standardized CBCT analysis. Implant placement difficulty was categorized intraoperatively as low, moderate, or high. Machine learning models, including logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost, were developed using Python libraries. Model performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and calibration metrics such as the Brier score. Results: Moderate difficulty cases were most common (41.6%), followed by low (36.8%) and high (21.6%) difficulty. Reduced bone dimensions and density were significantly associated with increased difficulty (p < 0.001). XGBoost showed the best performance (AUC 0.91, accuracy 87.6%, sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.89, Brier score 0.108). Conclusion: AI models, particularly XGBoost, can reliably predict implant placement difficulty and enhance clinical decision-making and treatment planning.
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.