Agreement Between Artificial Intelligence-Based and Expert Consensus Implant Planning Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Retrospective Observational Study.
7 affiliations
- 1Department of Dentistry, PKG Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, IND.
- 2Department of Periodontics, Drs. Sudha and Nageswara Rao Siddhartha Institute of Dental Sciences, Gannavaram, IND.
- 3Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Sri Hasanamba Dental College and Hospital, Hassan, IND.
- 4Department of Periodontics, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, IND.
- 5Department of Prosthodontics, K. M. Shah Dental College and Hospital, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Vadodara, IND.
- 6Department of Periodontics, Maharishi Markendeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research, Maharshi Markandeshwar (Deemed to be University), Mullana, IND.
- 7Department of Computer Science, Jazan University, Jazan, SAU.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being incorporated into digital implant dentistry, but the quantitative validation of AI-generated implant plans against expert consensus remains limited. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the agreement between an AI-based implant planning system and an expert consensus plan using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of posterior edentulous sites. This cross-sectional, observational study included 50 posterior edentulous sites from 50 adult patients. Two experienced implantologists independently planned implant length, diameter, mesiodistal position, and angulation, and a consensus plan was established as the reference standard. The same datasets were analyzed using an AI-based implant planning system. Agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), mean absolute error (MAE), Bland-Altman analysis, Cohen's kappa, and predefined clinical tolerance limits. Categorical agreement was 86% for implant length, 90% for diameter, 84% for position, and 88% for angulation. The ICC values were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95) for length, 0.87 (0.78-0.92) for diameter, 0.85 (0.75-0.91) for position, and 0.80 (0.68-0.88) for angulation. The mean differences between AI and consensus were 0.1 mm for length, 0.1 mm for diameter, -0.1 mm for position, and 0.7o for angulation; none were statistically significant (all p > 0.05). Clinically acceptable agreement was observed in 94%, 90%, 88%, and 82% of cases, respectively. AI-based implant planning demonstrated good-to-excellent agreement with expert consensus planning across implant dimensions and three-dimensional positioning parameters. The findings indicate substantial concordance between AI-generated and expert-derived planning recommendations under the conditions evaluated. However, agreement with expert planning should not be interpreted as evidence of clinical or surgical accuracy. Prospective validation against actual postoperative implant positions is required to determine clinical accuracy.
Related
- Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Algorithm to Enhance Angiographic Coronary Visibility in Morbid Obesity: A Retrospective Observational Study
- The effect of artificial intelligence-driven, computed tomography-based assessment of body composition parameters on 28-day mortality of patients with severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome: a retrospective cohort study.
- Artificial Intelligence Echocardiographic Interpretation in the Emergency Department: Agreement, Interpretation Yield and Reporting Scope
- Artificial Intelligence‐Assisted Automated Optical Coherence Tomography Analysis for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Planning: From Plaque Analysis to Precision Lesion Preparation and Stent Optimization
- The integration of artificial intelligence into computed tomography: from segmentation to the standardisation of clinical decisions
BibTeX
@article{das2026agreement,
title = {{Agreement Between Artificial Intelligence-Based and Expert Consensus Implant Planning Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Retrospective Observational Study.}},
author = {Rahul Das and Satyavolu S Siva and Sunitha Kaggal and Jignesh Tate and Jay Gohil and Rajesh K Gupta and Ifath Nazia Ghori},
journal = {Cureus},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.7759/cureus.117591},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42997526},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Agreement Between Artificial Intelligence-Based and Expert Consensus Implant Planning Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Retrospective Observational Study.
AU - Rahul Das
AU - Satyavolu S Siva
AU - Sunitha Kaggal
AU - Jignesh Tate
AU - Jay Gohil
AU - Rajesh K Gupta
AU - Ifath Nazia Ghori
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/07
JO - Cureus
DO - 10.7759/cureus.117591
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42997526
AB - Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being incorporated into digital implant dentistry, but the quantitative validation of AI-generated implant plans against expert consensus remains limited. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the agreement between an AI-based implant planning system and an expert consensus plan using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of posterior edentulous sites. This cross-sectional, observational study included 50 posterior edentulous sites from 50 adult patients. Two experienced implantologists independently planned implant length, diameter, mesiodistal position, and angulation, and a consensus plan was established as the reference standard. The same datasets were analyzed using an AI-based implant planning system. Agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), mean absolute error (MAE), Bland-Altman analysis, Cohen's kappa, and predefined clinical tolerance limits. Categorical agreement was 86% for implant length, 90% for diameter, 84% for position, and 88% for angulation. The ICC values were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95) for length, 0.87 (0.78-0.92) for diameter, 0.85 (0.75-0.91) for position, and 0.80 (0.68-0.88) for angulation. The mean differences between AI and consensus were 0.1 mm for length, 0.1 mm for diameter, -0.1 mm for position, and 0.7o for angulation; none were statistically significant (all p > 0.05). Clinically acceptable agreement was observed in 94%, 90%, 88%, and 82% of cases, respectively. AI-based implant planning demonstrated good-to-excellent agreement with expert consensus planning across implant dimensions and three-dimensional positioning parameters. The findings indicate substantial concordance between AI-generated and expert-derived planning recommendations under the conditions evaluated. However, agreement with expert planning should not be interpreted as evidence of clinical or surgical accuracy. Prospective validation against actual postoperative implant positions is required to determine clinical accuracy.
SN - 2168-8184
ER -