Digital technology has emerged as a transformative tool in dental implantation, profoundly enhancing accuracy and effectiveness across multiple facets, such as diagnosis, preoperative treatment planning, surgical procedures, and restoration delivery. The multiple integration of radiographic data and intraoral data, sometimes with facial scan data or electronic facebow through virtual planning software, enables comprehensive 3-dimensional visualization of the hard and soft tissue and the position of future restoration, resulting in heightened diagnostic precision. In virtual surgery design, the incorporation of both prosthetic arrangement and individual anatomical details enables the virtual execution of critical procedures (e.g., implant placement, extended applications, etc.) through analysis of cross-sectional images and the reconstruction of 3-dimensional surface models. After verification, the utilization of digital technology including templates, navigation, combined techniques, and implant robots achieved seamless transfer of the virtual treatment plan to the actual surgical sites, ultimately leading to enhanced surgical outcomes with highly improved accuracy. In restoration delivery, digital techniques for impression, shade matching, and prosthesis fabrication have advanced, enabling seamless digital data conversion and efficient communication among clinicians and technicians. Compared with clinical medicine, artificial intelligence (AI) technology in dental implantology primarily focuses on diagnosis and prediction. AI-supported preoperative planning and surgery remain in developmental phases, impeded by the complexity of clinical cases and ethical considerations, thereby constraining widespread adoption.
AklMAMansourDEZhengF. 2023. The role of intraoral scanners in the shade matching process: a systematic review. J Prosthodont. 32(3):196–203.
2.
AydemirCAArısanV. 2020. Accuracy of dental implant placement via dynamic navigation or the freehand method: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 31(3):255–263.
3.
BeraKBramanNGuptaAVelchetiVMadabhushiA. 2022. Predicting cancer outcomes with radiomics and artificial intelligence in radiology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 19(2):132–146.
4.
BhandariMZeffiroTReddiboinaM. 2020. Artificial intelligence and robotic surgery: current perspective and future directions. Curr Opin Urol. 30(1):48–54.
5.
BishtiSTunaTRittichAWolfartS. 2021. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of implant-supported reconstructions using digital workflows: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 32 Suppl 21:318–335.
6.
CaoRZhangSLiLQiuPXuHCaoY. 2023. Accuracy of intraoral scanning versus conventional impressions for partial edentulous patients with maxillary defects. Sci Rep. 13(1):16773.
7.
CartiauxOJennyJYJoskowiczL. 2017. Accuracy of computer-aided techniques in orthopaedic surgery: how can it be defined, measured experimentally, and analyzed from a clinical perspective?J Bone Joint Surg Am. 99(8):e39.
8.
ChackartchiTRomanosGEParkanyiLSchwarzFSculeanA. 2022. Reducing errors in guided implant surgery to optimize treatment outcomes. Periodontology2000. 88(1):64–72.
9.
ChadebecqFLovatLBStoyanovD. 2023. Artificial intelligence and automation in endoscopy and surgery. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 20(3):171–182.
10.
ChenYWHanakBWYangTCWilsonTAHsiaJMWalshHEShihHCNagatomoKJ. 2021. Computer-assisted surgery in medical and dental applications. Expert Rev Med Devices. 18(7):669–696.
11.
D’HaeseJAckhurstJWismeijerDDe BruynHTahmasebA. 2017. Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery. Periodontology2000. 73(1):121–133.
12.
FabeloHHalicekMOrtegaSShahediMSzolnaAPiñeiroJFSosaCO’ShanahanAJBisshoppSEspinoC, et al. 2019. Deep learning-based framework for in vivo identification of glioblastoma tumor using hyperspectral images of human brain. Sensors (Basel). 19(4):920.
13.
FranchinaAStefanelliLVMalteseFMandelarisGAVantaggiatoAPagliaruloMPrannoNBraunerEAngelisFCarloSD. 2020. Validation of an intra-oral scan method versus cone beam computed tomography superimposition to assess the accuracy between planned and achieved dental implants: a randomized in vitro study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 17(24):9358.
14.
FuXJLiuMLiuBLTonettiMSShiJYLaiHC. 2023. Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis: a clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res [epub ahead of print 25 Sep 2023]. doi:10.1111/clr.14183
15.
GintauteAZitzmannNUBraggerUWeberKJodaT. 2023. Patient-reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO2 implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: a double-blind crossover randomized controlled trial. J Prosthodont. 32(1):18–25.
16.
Gomez-PoloMBarmakABOrtegaRRutkunasVKoisJCRevilla-LeónM. 2023. Accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of stereophotogrammetry systems for acquiring 3d dental implant positions: a systematic review. J Prosthodont. 32(S2):208–224.
17.
GrecchiFD’AmbrogioRGStefanelliLVGrivettoFGokerFDel FabbroMSchreiberAPiazzaCSalgarelloSDosioC, et al. 2023. Guided zygomatic implantology for oral cancer rehabilitation: a case report. J Clin Med. 12(11):3653.
18.
HaidarZS. 2017. Autonomous robotics: a fresh era of implant dentistry . . . is a reality!J Oral Res. 6:230–231.
19.
HylandSLFaltysMHüserMLyuXGumbschTEstebanCBockCHornMMoorMRieckB, et al. 2020. Early prediction of circulatory failure in the intensive care unit using machine learning. Nat Med. 26(3):364–373.
20.
JiaSWangGZhaoYWangX. 2023. Accuracy of an autonomous dental implant robotic system versus static guide-assisted implant surgery: a retrospective clinical study. J Prosthet Dent [epub ahead of print 6 Jun 2023]. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.04.027
21.
JodaTGintauteABraggerUFerrariMWeberKZitzmannNU. 2021. Time-efficiency and cost-analysis comparing three digital workflows for treatment with monolithic zirconia implant fixed dental prostheses: a double-blinded rct. J Dent. 113:103779.
22.
LeeDWKimSYJeongSNLeeJH. 2021. Artificial intelligence in fractured dental implant detection and classification: evaluation using dataset from two dental hospitals. Diagnostics (Basel). 11(2):233.
23.
LiQBiMYangKLiuW. 2021. The creation of a virtual dental patient with dynamic occlusion and its application in esthetic dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 126(1):14–18.
24.
LiuMWangSChenHLiuY. 2022. A pilot study of a deep learning approach to detect marginal bone loss around implants. BMC Oral Health. 22(1):11.
25.
LorwicheanrungJMahardawiBArunjaroensukSKaboosayaBMattheosNPimkhaokhamA. 2023. The accuracy of implant placement using a combination of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous arches: a prospective controlled clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res [epub ahead of print 26 Sep 2023]. doi:10.1111/clr.14185
26.
KivovicsMTakácsAPénzesDNémethOMijiritskyE. 2022. Accuracy of dental implant placement using augmented reality-based navigation, static computer assisted implant surgery, and the free-hand method: an in vitro study. J Dent. 119:104070.
27.
MaiHNDamVVLeeDH. 2023. Accuracy of augmented reality-assisted navigation in dental implant surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 25:e42040.
28.
ManganoFGAdmakinOLernerHManganoC. 2023. Artificial intelligence and augmented reality for guided implant surgery planning: a proof of concept. J Dent. 133:104485.
29.
MeskóBGörögM. 2020. A short guide for medical professionals in the era of artificial intelligence. NPJ Digit Med. 3:126.
30.
Mohammad-RahimiHMotamedianSRPirayeshZHaiatAZahedrozegarSMahmoudiniaERohbanMHKroisJLeeJHSchwendickeF. 2022. Deep learning in periodontology and oral implantology: a scoping review. J Periodontal Res. 57(5):942–951.
31.
MuhlemannSHjerppeJHammerleCHFThomaDS. 2021. Production time, effectiveness and costs of additive and subtractive computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 32 Suppl 21:289–302.
32.
OchandianoSGarcía-MatoDGonzalez-AlvarezAMoreta-MartinezRTousidonisMNavarro-CuellarCNavarro-CuellarISalmerónJIPascauJ. 2022. Computer-assisted dental implant placement following free flap reconstruction: virtual planning, CAD/CAM templates, dynamic navigation and augmented reality. Front Oncol. 11:754943.
33.
PanYTsoiJKHLamWYHZhaoKPowEHN. 2022. The cumulative effect of error in the digital workflow for complete-arch implant-supported frameworks: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 33(9):886–899.
34.
ParkWSchwendickeFKroisJHuhJKLeeJH. 2023. Identification of dental implant systems using a large-scale multicenter data set. J Dent Res. 102(7):727–733.
35.
PimkhaokhamAChowJPozziAArunjaroensukSSubbalehkaKMattheosN. 2023. Computer-assisted and robotic implant surgery: assessing the outcome measures of accuracy and educational implications. Clin Oral Implants Res [epub ahead of print 23 Nov 2023]. doi:10.1111/clr.14213
36.
PimkhaokhamAJiaranuchartSKaboosayaBArunjaroensukSSubbalekhaKMattheosN. 2022. Can computer-assisted implant surgery improve clinical outcomes and reduce the frequency and intensity of complications in implant dentistry? A critical review. Periodontology2000. 90(1):197–223.
37.
Pomares-PuigCSánchez-GarcésMAJorba-GarcíaA. 2023. Dynamic and static computer-assisted implant surgery for completely edentulous patients. A proof of a concept. J Dent. 130:104443.
38.
RaffoneCGianfredaFAntonacciDPompeoMGBolleroPCanulloL. 2023. Chairside virtual patient protocol. Part 3: in vitro accuracy of a digital facebow. J Dent. 137:104622.
39.
RasaieVAbduoJHashemiS. 2021. Accuracy of intraoral scanners for recording the denture bearing areas: a systematic review. J Prosthodont. 30(6):520–539.
40.
RenSJiangXLinYDiP. 2022. Crown accuracy and time efficiency of cement-retained implant-supported restorations in a complete digital workflow: a randomized control trial. J Prosthodont. 31(5):405–411.
41.
Revilla-LeónMAttWOzcanMRubensteinJ. 2021. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. J Prosthet Dent. 125(3):470–478.
42.
Revilla-LeónMGómez-PoloMVyasSBarmakABGallucciGOAttWÖzcanMKrishnamurthyVR. 2023. Artificial intelligence models for tooth-supported fixed and removable prosthodontics: a systematic review.J Prosthet Dent. 129(2):276–292.
43.
Revilla-LeónMKoisDEKoisJC. 2023. A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: operator factors. J Esthet Restor Dent. 35(1):230–240.
44.
SaeidiHOpfermannJDKamMWeiSLeonardSHsiehMHKangJUKriegerA. 2022. Autonomous robotic laparoscopic surgery for intestinal anastomosis. Sci Robot. 7(62):eabj2908.
45.
SakaiTLiHShimadaTKitaSIidaMLeeCNakanoTYamaguchiSImazatoS. 2023. Development of artificial intelligence model for supporting implant drilling protocol decision making. J Prosthodont Res. 67(3):360–365.
46.
SenbekovMSalievTBukeyevaZAlmabayevaAZhanaliyevaMAitenovaNToishibekovYFakhradiyevI. 2020. The recent progress and applications of digital technologies in healthcare: a review. Int J Telemed Appl. 2020:8830200.
47.
ShanTTayFRGuL. 2021. Application of artificial intelligence in dentistry. J Dent Res. 100(3):232–244.
48.
SiqueiraRGalliMChenZMendonçaGMeirellesLWangHLChanHL. 2021. Intraoral scanning reduces procedure time and improves patient comfort in fixed prosthodontics and implant dentistry: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 25(12):6517–6531.
49.
SunTMLeeHELanTH. 2020. Comparing accuracy of implant installation with a navigation system (ns), a laboratory guide (lg), ns with lg, and freehand drilling. International journal of environmental research and public health. 17(6).
50.
TabatabaianFBeyabanakiEAlirezaeiPEpakchiS. 2021. Visual and digital tooth shade selection methods, related effective factors and conditions, and their accuracy and precision: a literature review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 33(8):1084–1104.
51.
TabatabaianFNamdariMMahshidMVoraSRMirabbasiS. 2022. Accuracy and precision of intraoral scanners for shade matching: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent [epub ahead of print 5 Nov 2022]. doi:10.1016/j.pros dent.2022.08.034
52.
TahmasebAWuVWismeijerDCouckeWEvansC. 2018. The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 29 Suppl 16:416–435.
53.
TaoBFanXWangFChenXShenYWuY. 2024. Comparison of the accuracy of dental implant placement using dynamic and augmented reality-based dynamic navigation: an in vitro study. J Dent Sci. 19(1):196–202.
54.
TonettiMSSanzMAvila-OrtizGBerglundhTCairoFDerksJFigueroEGrazianiFGuerraFHeitz-MayfieldL, et al. 2023. Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: the implant dentistry core outcome set and measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report. Clin Oral Implants Res. 34 Suppl 25:4–21.
55.
VitaiVNémethASólyomECzumbelLMSzabóBFazekasRGerberGHegyiPHermannPBorbélyJ. 2023. Evaluation of the accuracy of intraoral scanners for complete-arch scanning: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Dent. 137:104636
56.
WeiSMZhuYWeiJXZhangCNShiJYLaiHC. 2021. Accuracy of dynamic navigation in implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 32(4):383–393.
57.
YangJLiH. 2024. Accuracy assessment of robot-assisted implant surgery in dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent [epub ahead of print 8 Jan 2024]. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.12.003
58.
YiCLiSWenAWangYZhaoYZhangY. 2022. Digital versus radiographic accuracy evaluation of guided implant surgery: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 22(1):540.
59.
YotpibulwongTArunjaroensukSKaboosayaBSinpitaksakulPArksornnukitMMattheosNPimkhaokhamA. 2023. Accuracy of implant placement with a combined use of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 34(4):330–341.
60.
YuanYLiuQYangSHeW. 2023. Four-dimensional superimposition techniques to compose dental dynamic virtual patients: a systematic review.J Funct Biomater. 14(1):33.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
