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

IF 4.8 1区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2025-03-14 DOI:10.1111/clr.14429
Bahaaeldeen M Elgarba, Rocharles Cavalcante Fontenele, Xijin Du, Sorana Mureșanu, Mihai Tarce, Jan Meeus, Reinhilde Jacobs
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence Versus Human Intelligence in Presurgical Implant Planning: A Preclinical Validation.","authors":"Bahaaeldeen M Elgarba, Rocharles Cavalcante Fontenele, Xijin Du, Sorana Mureșanu, Mihai Tarce, Jan Meeus, Reinhilde Jacobs","doi":"10.1111/clr.14429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14429","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
目的通过比较人工智能(AI)与基于人类智能(HI)的单后牙替换方法的准确性、种植体尺寸选择、时间效率和一致性,验证一种创新的人工智能(AI)驱动的自动虚拟种植体植入工具:选取了 50 个时间匹配的下颌后牙缺失锥束计算机断层扫描和口内扫描数据集,将预先训练的人工智能虚拟种植体植入模型与基于人工智能的方法进行验证。人工智能和人工智能对种植体位置和种植体尺寸选择进行了定量比较,并由三位种植牙专家使用视觉模拟量表和图灵测试进行了定性三维评估,以评估和区分人工智能和人工智能。此外,还对耗时和一致性进行了评估:专家们发现,约 89% 的人工智能规划种植体和 93% 的人工智能规划种植体在临床上是可接受的,58% 的人工智能病例无法确定规划方法。人工智能选择的种植体长度为 11.7 毫米(1.3),直径为 4.0 毫米(0.3),接近专家选择的 11.5 毫米(1.3)和 4.2 毫米(0.4)。人工智能的速度是专家的两倍多,规划时间缩短到 187 秒(34),而人工智能则缩短到 406 秒(68)(P 结论:人工智能的速度是专家的两倍多,而人工智能的速度则是专家的两倍多:人工智能在下颌(前)磨牙缺失的虚拟种植体植入方面是可靠的,它能生成临床上可接受的计划,与人类专家不相上下,同时比种植临床医生的操作更快、更稳定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
11.60%
发文量
149
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.
期刊最新文献
Correction to "Low-Dose, Standard, and High-Resolution Cone Beam Computed Tomography for Alveolar Bone Measurements Related to Implant Planning: An Ex Vivo Study in Human Specimens. Patient-Reported Outcomes With Immediate-Loaded Zygomatic Implant Fixed Rehabilitation in Patients With Edentulous Atrophic Maxilla: A Retrospective Practice-Based Clinical Study. Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Increase at Small Buccal Bone Dehiscences With Either Volume-Stable Collagen Matrix or Connective Tissue Graft: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Autogenous Bone Versus Bovine Bone Mineral Mixed With 25% Autogenous Bone: A 1‐Year Multicenter, Split‐Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial Tenting Screw Technique for Horizontal Alveolar Bone Augmentation in the Anterior Maxilla: A 1‐ to 5‐Year Retrospective Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1