+ HEALTH Background Discharge letters are essential for continuity of care, yet patients often misunderstand their con…± HEALTH Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) glass slide preparation is fundamental to histopathology. Pathologists' expertise…+ CLIMATE Traditional soil heavy metal risk assessments suffer from fragmented indices and poor logical integration. Co…± HEALTH Background Neonatal pneumothorax can progress rapidly, yet detection on supine chest radiographs remains chal…+ HEALTH T cell exhaustion has widespread implications for the progression and treatment of chronic diseases including…+ HEALTH Background Standard pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) risk models may not fully apply to PAH associated w…+ HEALTH Objectives To map and synthesize the scientific evidence regarding the use of Augmented Reality (AR) and Mixe…± HEALTH Objective To examine whether the outputs of machine learning algorithms designed to predict risk of cardiovas…
TruaceTracing the truth around AIMonday, September 14, 2026
Subscribe
Health·G Space·Evidence-backed gain·Published 2026-09-14

Augmented and mixed reality as auxiliary tools in dental procedures and their integration with artificial intelligence: a scoping review

Abstract: Objectives To map and synthesize the scientific evidence regarding the use of Augmented Reality (AR) and Mixed Reality (MR) as auxiliary tools in dental procedures, and to examine the extent to which Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been integrated into these workflows. Data A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) recommendations. The study selection and data extraction processes were carried out by two independent reviewers, with disagree…

TRV-2026-1082Peer-reviewedPermanent record — cite & verify
Augmented and mixed reality as auxiliary tools in dental procedures and their integration with artificial intelligence: a scoping review

"09-8018-23" by NavyMedicine is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0. To view the terms, visit https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/.

The quick read

By September 2026, a scoping review of literature up to June 2025 synthesized 15 studies on augmented and mixed reality as auxiliary tools in dentistry and their integration with AI. Most evidence was in implant dentistry, where MR-based dynamic navigation achieved sub-millimetric accuracy and outperformed freehand technique, with reported improvements in angular accuracy for inexperienced operators and more conservative tissue removal in endodontics and tooth preparation.

The review matters because it separates demonstrated navigation benefits from the limited role of AI, which remained in preparatory segmentation and planning rather than live execution, and because it highlights that zygomatic implant placement did not surpass freehand without robotic stabilization. Uncertainty remains about real-world clinical effectiveness given the predominance of in vitro and proof-of-concept designs and the stated need for multicenter randomized trials with independent validation.

Main points
  • Scoping review of 15 studies from 1,457 records searched in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to June 2025.
  • Most evidence concentrated in implant dentistry with reported three-dimensional entry deviation of 0.417 mm.
  • AI, where present, was restricted to preparatory stages: automated segmentation, image registration, and planning support, rather than intraoperative execution.
  • More conservative tissue removal reported in endodontic access and tooth preparation using AR/MR visualization.
Gain

In implant dentistry, MR-based dynamic navigation achieved sub-millimetric entry deviation and outperformed freehand technique, with up to 72% angular accuracy improvement for inexperienced operators and more conservative tissue removal in endodontic and prosthetic tasks.

The rundown

The review followed PRISMA-ScR and JBI recommendations with two independent reviewers and searches in three databases up to June 2025, yielding 15 included studies from 1,457 records.

AR and MR were applied predominantly as intraoperative visualization and navigation aids, while AI was identified in a minority of studies and confined to automated segmentation, image registration, and planning support rather than intraoperative execution.

Sources

Reader signal

How should this claim be treated?

The debate