Accuracy of Guided Implant Placement Using Artificial Intelligence Segmentation Versus Conventional Technique

NCT06967090 | Not Yet Recruiting

• 1 other identifier: AI in Guided implant surgery
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 20
• Locations: 0 countries
• Sites: N/A

Brief Summary

To compare the accuracy of surgical guided implant using AI tooth segmentation of the CBCT alone without intraoral scan to fabricate the implant guide versus conventional technique by alignment the CBCT and intraoral scan to fabricate the implant guide in posterior implant.

Conditions

Dental Implant

Keywords

AI in guided dental implant

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (3)

• The accuracy of the placed implants

  The accuracy of the placed implants by measurements of the following: Horizontal platform deviation, (Measuring unit in millimeter) corresponding to the horizontal distance between the virtually planned and actually placed implant platforms.

  one week after surgery

• Horizontal apex deviation, (Measuring unit in millimeter)

  corresponding to the horizontal distance between the virtually planned and placed implant apices.

  one week after surgery

• Angular deviation, (Measuring unit in degree)

  corresponding to the angle between the virtually planned and placed implant axes.

  one week after surgery

Study Arms (2)

Study group:

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Will use surgical guided implant using AI tooth segmentation of the CBCT alone without intraoral scan to fabricate the implant guide.

Device: Implant surgery using surgical guide

Control group:

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Will use surgical guided implant using conventional technique and intraoral scan to fabricate the implant guide.

Device: Implant surgery using surgical guide

Interventions

Implant surgery using surgical guide DEVICE

Dental implant surgical guides are customized device used to position dental implants to ensure that the implant is placed in the most ideal location, angulation and depth into the bone.

Control group:; Study group:

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 75 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Patients with missing posterior teeth require implant surgery.
• Patients have remaining teeth that can support the surgical guide.
• The edentulous area should involve healed bone sites at least 3 months after extraction.
• The edentulous area should have bone height of at least 10 mm from the alveolar crest to the nearest vital structure and bone width of at least 6 mm.
• Age: patient above 18 years old.
• All patients are in good health with no systemic, immunologic or debilitating diseases that could affect normal bone healing.
• All selected patients are non-smokers and non-alcoholics. Patients are free from temporomandibular disorders and abnormal (TMD) oral habits such as bruxism.

You may not qualify if:

• Systemic disease that may affect bone quality.
• Patients with poor oral hygiene and active periodontal diseases.
• Patient with limited mouth opening.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Fayoum University: lead

Related Publications (13)

• On SW, Cho SW, Park SY, Yi SM, Park IY, Byun SH, Kim JC, Yang BE. Advancements in computer-assisted orthognathic surgery: A comprehensive review and clinical application in South Korea. J Dent. 2024 Jul;146:105061. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105061. Epub 2024 May 9.

  PMID: 38729289 BACKGROUND

• Altalhi AM, Alharbi FS, Alhodaithy MA, Almarshedy BS, Al-Saaib MY, Al Jfshar RM, Aljohani AS, Alshareef AH, Muhayya M, Al-Harbi NH. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Dental Implantology: A Narrative Review. Cureus. 2023 Oct 30;15(10):e47941. doi: 10.7759/cureus.47941. eCollection 2023 Oct.

  PMID: 38034167 BACKGROUND

• Schubert O, Schweiger J, Stimmelmayr M, Nold E, Guth JF. Digital implant planning and guided implant surgery - workflow and reliability. Br Dent J. 2019 Jan 25;226(2):101-108. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2019.44.

  PMID: 30679852 BACKGROUND

• Mahardawi B, Jiaranuchart S, Arunjaroensuk S, Dhanesuan K, Mattheos N, Pimkhaokham A. The Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement With Different Methods of Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2025 Jan;36(1):1-16. doi: 10.1111/clr.14357. Epub 2024 Sep 10.

  PMID: 39254507 BACKGROUND

• Aghaloo T, Hadaya D, Schoenbaum TR, Pratt L, Favagehi M. Guided and Navigation Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2023 May-Jun;38(suppl):7-15. doi: 10.11607/jomi.10465.

  PMID: 37436945 BACKGROUND

• Ulbrich M, Van den Bosch V, Bonsch A, Gruber LJ, Ooms M, Melchior C, Motmaen I, Wilpert C, Rashad A, Kuhlen TW, Holzle F, Puladi B. Advantages of a Training Course for Surgical Planning in Virtual Reality for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: Crossover Study. JMIR Serious Games. 2023 Jan 19;11:e40541. doi: 10.2196/40541.

  PMID: 36656632 BACKGROUND

• Marei HF, Abdel-Hady A, Al-Khalifa K, Al-Mahalawy H. Influence of surgeon experience on the accuracy of implant placement via a partially computer-guided surgical protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 September/October;34(5):1177-1183. doi: 10.11607/jomi.7480. Epub 2019 Apr 1.

  PMID: 30934035 BACKGROUND

• Khaohoen A, Powcharoen W, Sornsuwan T, Chaijareenont P, Rungsiyakull C, Rungsiyakull P. Accuracy of implant placement with computer-aided static, dynamic, and robot-assisted surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. BMC Oral Health. 2024 Mar 21;24(1):359. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04033-y.

  PMID: 38509530 BACKGROUND

• Custodio ALN, Chrcanovic BR, Cameron A, Bakr M, Reher P. Accuracy evaluation of 3D-printed guide-assisted flapless micro-osteoperforations in the anterior mandible. Int J Comput Dent. 2022 Nov 25;25(4):387-396. doi: 10.3290/j.ijcd.b2599841.

  PMID: 35072427 BACKGROUND

• Li Y, Lyu J, Cao X, Zhou Y, Tan J, Liu X. Accuracy of a calibration method based on cone beam computed tomography and intraoral scanner data registration for robot-assisted implant placement: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Dec;132(6):1309.e1-1309.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.08.009. Epub 2024 Sep 7.

  PMID: 39245604 BACKGROUND

• Minnema J, Ernst A, van Eijnatten M, Pauwels R, Forouzanfar T, Batenburg KJ, Wolff J. A review on the application of deep learning for CT reconstruction, bone segmentation and surgical planning in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2022 Sep 1;51(7):20210437. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20210437. Epub 2022 May 23.

  PMID: 35532946 BACKGROUND

• Lahoud P, Diels S, Niclaes L, Van Aelst S, Willems H, Van Gerven A, Quirynen M, Jacobs R. Development and validation of a novel artificial intelligence driven tool for accurate mandibular canal segmentation on CBCT. J Dent. 2022 Jan;116:103891. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103891. Epub 2021 Nov 13.

  PMID: 34780873 BACKGROUND

• Shaheen E, Leite A, Alqahtani KA, Smolders A, Van Gerven A, Willems H, Jacobs R. A novel deep learning system for multi-class tooth segmentation and classification on cone beam computed tomography. A validation study. J Dent. 2021 Dec;115:103865. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103865. Epub 2021 Oct 26.

  PMID: 34710545 BACKGROUND

Study Officials

• Haytham Ahmed Salah Al-Mahalawy, Phd

  Head of the Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Faculty of Dentistry Fayoum University

  STUDY CHAIR

• Nourhan Mohamed Abdelmoneim, Phd

  Lecturer of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Faculty of Dentistry Fayoum University

  STUDY CHAIR

Central Study Contacts

Dina Emad Rabie, Bachelor's

CONTACT

00201104790329; de1279@fayoum.edu.eg

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Principal Investigator

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: May 1, 2025
• First Posted: May 13, 2025
• Study Start: June 1, 2025
• Primary Completion (Estimated): June 1, 2026
• Study Completion (Estimated): July 1, 2026
• Last Updated: May 13, 2025

Record last verified: 2025-05