File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Artificial Intelligence Versus Human Intelligence in Presurgical Implant Planning: A Preclinical Validation

TitleArtificial Intelligence Versus Human Intelligence in Presurgical Implant Planning: A Preclinical Validation
Authors
Keywords3D imaging
artificial intelligence
cone-beam computed tomography
dental implant
implant dentistry
jaw
molar tooth
preoperative implant planning
Issue Date1-Jul-2025
PublisherWiley
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2025, v. 36, n. 7, p. 835-845 How to Cite?
Abstract

Objectives: To validate an innovative artificial intelligence (AI)–driven tool for automated virtual implant placement by comparing its accuracy, implant dimension selection, time efficiency, and consistency with a human intelligence (HI)–based approach for single posterior tooth replacement. Materials and Methods: A dataset of 50 time-matched cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral scans with a single missing posterior mandibular tooth was selected to validate a pre-trained AI model for virtual implant placement against a HI-based approach. A quantitative comparison of implant location and implant dimension selection was conducted between AI and HI, and a qualitative three-dimensional evaluation was conducted by three implant dentistry specialists using a visual analog scale and a Turing test to assess and distinguish between AI and HI. Additionally, time consumption and consistency were evaluated. Results: Experts found that approximately 89% of AI-planned and 93% of HI-planned implants were clinically acceptable, with the planning method unidentifiable in 58% of AI cases. AI selected implant dimensions of 11.7 mm (1.3) in length and 4.0 mm (0.3) in diameter, close to experts' selections of 11.5 mm (1.3) and 4.2 mm (0.4). AI was over twice as fast, reducing planning time to 187 s (34) compared to 406 s (68) for HI (p < 0.0001), and demonstrated high consistency with a median surface deviation (MSD) of zero, while intra- and inter-operator MSDs were 0.33 mm (0.14) and 0.56 mm (0.34), respectively (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Artificial intelligence is reliable for virtual implant placement in missing mandibular (pre)molars, producing clinically acceptable plans comparable to human experts while operating faster and much more consistently than implant clinicians.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/358390
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 4.8
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.865

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorElgarba, Bahaaeldeen M.-
dc.contributor.authorFontenele, Rocharles Cavalcante-
dc.contributor.authorDu, Xijin-
dc.contributor.authorMureșanu, Sorana-
dc.contributor.authorTarce, Mihai-
dc.contributor.authorMeeus, Jan-
dc.contributor.authorJacobs, Reinhilde-
dc.date.accessioned2025-08-07T00:31:56Z-
dc.date.available2025-08-07T00:31:56Z-
dc.date.issued2025-07-01-
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2025, v. 36, n. 7, p. 835-845-
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/358390-
dc.description.abstract<p>Objectives: To validate an innovative artificial intelligence (AI)–driven tool for automated virtual implant placement by comparing its accuracy, implant dimension selection, time efficiency, and consistency with a human intelligence (HI)–based approach for single posterior tooth replacement. Materials and Methods: A dataset of 50 time-matched cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral scans with a single missing posterior mandibular tooth was selected to validate a pre-trained AI model for virtual implant placement against a HI-based approach. A quantitative comparison of implant location and implant dimension selection was conducted between AI and HI, and a qualitative three-dimensional evaluation was conducted by three implant dentistry specialists using a visual analog scale and a Turing test to assess and distinguish between AI and HI. Additionally, time consumption and consistency were evaluated. Results: Experts found that approximately 89% of AI-planned and 93% of HI-planned implants were clinically acceptable, with the planning method unidentifiable in 58% of AI cases. AI selected implant dimensions of 11.7 mm (1.3) in length and 4.0 mm (0.3) in diameter, close to experts' selections of 11.5 mm (1.3) and 4.2 mm (0.4). AI was over twice as fast, reducing planning time to 187 s (34) compared to 406 s (68) for HI (p < 0.0001), and demonstrated high consistency with a median surface deviation (MSD) of zero, while intra- and inter-operator MSDs were 0.33 mm (0.14) and 0.56 mm (0.34), respectively (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Artificial intelligence is reliable for virtual implant placement in missing mandibular (pre)molars, producing clinically acceptable plans comparable to human experts while operating faster and much more consistently than implant clinicians.</p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherWiley-
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Research-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subject3D imaging-
dc.subjectartificial intelligence-
dc.subjectcone-beam computed tomography-
dc.subjectdental implant-
dc.subjectimplant dentistry-
dc.subjectjaw-
dc.subjectmolar tooth-
dc.subjectpreoperative implant planning-
dc.titleArtificial Intelligence Versus Human Intelligence in Presurgical Implant Planning: A Preclinical Validation -
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/clr.14429-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-105000325090-
dc.identifier.volume36-
dc.identifier.issue7-
dc.identifier.spage835-
dc.identifier.epage845-
dc.identifier.eissn1600-0501-
dc.identifier.issnl0905-7161-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats