Artificial Intelligence Assisted Workflow Versus Conventional Workflow in Guided Implant Placement

NCT07523815 | Recruiting Phase 4

• 1 other identifier: sandra.eltarzi1
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 20
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

The AI assisted CAD/CAM workflow will be adopted for the treatment planning and guide design generation with the aim of comparing precision of implant placement with conventional digital workflow.

Conditions

Partially Edentulous Mandible

Keywords

Dental Implant; Implant Placement; Accuracy; Computer guided; CAIS; Implant planning; CAD/CAM

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (3)

• Linear Discrepancy

  The linear implant position discrepancy between the plan and the actual implant position in millimeters will be assessed using a specialized software.

  Immediate post operative

• Angular Discrepancy

  The angular implant position discrepancy between the plan and the actual implant position in degrees will be assessed using a specialized software.

  Immediate post operative

• CAD Timing

  The time elapsed for AI assisted CAD, will be compared to time elapsed during conventional CAD workflow in seconds using a stopwatch.

  Immediate post operative

Study Arms (2)

Computer guided implant placement using artificial intelligence assisted designing and manufacturing

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Procedure: Conventional computer guided implant placement

Computer guided implant placement using conventional digital workflow in designing and manufacturing

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Procedure: AI assisted implant placement

Interventions

AI assisted implant placement PROCEDURE

the AI assisted workflow will be adopted for the treatment planning and guide design generation. Then, the surgical guide with the embedded sleeve will be designed and 3D printed.

Computer guided implant placement using conventional digital workflow in designing and manufacturing

Conventional computer guided implant placement PROCEDURE

The virtual implant planning for all patients will be done by one qualified experienced dentist in implant dentistry. Then, the surgical guide with the embedded sleeve will be designed using the conventional CAD steps for static guide design and 3D printed with computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology.

Computer guided implant placement using artificial intelligence assisted designing and manufacturing

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 50 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: No
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• Kennedy class III partially edentulous patient with or without modifications.
• Patients who need single implant posterior site delayed implant placement.
• Patients above 18 and below 60 years of age.
• Natural healthy neighboring teeth without need of new restorations.

You may not qualify if:

• Patients with D4 bone density.
• Patients with known systemic or local diseases or treatments which can affect normal tissue healing.
• Patients who are heavy smokers.
• Presence of signs of active infection or pus formation.
• Patients with a need for implants in the anterior region.
• Additional oral surgery in the region of interest.
• Need For Bone grafting.
• Pregnant and/or lactating women

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Sandra Moussa Botros El Tarzi: lead

Study Sites (1)

Faculty of Dentistry - Cairo University

Cairo, Manial, Egypt

RECRUITING

Related Publications (10)

• Zhou, W., Z. Liu, L. Song, C. L. Kuo and D. M. Shafer (2018). "Clinical Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Guided Implant Surgery-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." J Evid Based Dent Pract 18(1): 28-40.

  BACKGROUND

• Younes, F., J. Cosyn, T. De Bruyckere, R. Cleymaet, E. Bouckaert and A. Eghbali (2018). "A randomized controlled study on the accuracy of free-handed, pilot-drill guided and fully guided implant surgery in partially edentulous patients." J Clin Periodontol 45(6): 721-732.

  BACKGROUND

• Van de Velde, T., F. Glor and H. De Bruyn (2008). "A model study on flapless implant placement by clinicians with a different experience level in implant surgery." Clin Oral Implants Res 19(1): 66-72.

  BACKGROUND

• Takács, A., E. Hardi, B. G. N. Cavalcante, B. Szabó, B. Kispélyi, Á. Joób-Fancsaly, K. Mikulás, G. Varga, P. Hegyi and M. Kivovics (2023). "Advancing accuracy in guided implant placement: A comprehensive meta-analysis: Meta-Analysis evaluation of the accuracy of available implant placement Methods." J Dent 139: 104748.

  BACKGROUND

• 6. Smitkarn, P., K. Subbalekha, N. Mattheos and A. Pimkhaokham (2019). "The accuracy of single-tooth implants placed using fully digital-guided surgery and freehand implant surgery." J Clin Periodontol 46(9): 949-957.

  BACKGROUND

• 5. Shujaat, S., M. Riaz and R. Jacobs (2023). "Synergy between artificial intelligence and precision medicine for computer-assisted oral and maxillofacial surgical planning." Clin Oral Investig 27(3): 897-906.

  BACKGROUND

• 4. Shirmohammadi, A. and S. Ghertasi Oskouei (2023). "The growing footprint of artificial intelligence in periodontology & implant dentistry." J Adv Periodontol Implant Dent 15(1): 1-2.

  BACKGROUND

• Murphy, D. C. and D. B. Saleh (2020). "Artificial Intelligence in plastic surgery: What is it? Where are we now? What is on the horizon?" Ann R Coll Surg Engl 102(8): 577-580.

  BACKGROUND

• 2. Hung, K., C. Montalvao, R. Tanaka, T. Kawai and M. M. Bornstein (2020). "The use and performance of artificial intelligence applications in dental and maxillofacial radiology: A systematic review." Dentomaxillofac Radiol 49(1): 20190107.

  BACKGROUND

• Ersoy, A. E., I. Turkyilmaz, O. Ozan and E. A. McGlumphy (2008). "Reliability of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical guides generated from computed tomography: clinical data from 94 implants." J Periodontol 79(8): 1339-1345.

  BACKGROUND

Central Study Contacts

Sandra Moussa El Tarzi, BDS

CONTACT

+201226665141; sandra.eltarzi@dentistry.cu.edu.eg

Nehal IA Shobair, PhD

CONTACT

00201063666985; nehal.shobair@miuegypt.edu.eg

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: phase 4
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: DOUBLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Researcher

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: April 6, 2026
• First Posted: April 13, 2026
• Study Start: May 1, 2026
• Primary Completion (Estimated): October 1, 2026
• Study Completion (Estimated): December 1, 2026
• Last Updated: April 13, 2026

Record last verified: 2025-08

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

EG (1)