Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 16, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Comparative evaluation of precision, morphology, and structural stability in AI-based dental crown design software
Jae-Hyun Sim1, Mi-Jun Noh2, Hee-Ryung Kim3
1Doctoral student, Department of Healthcare Sciences, Graduate School, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; and Transdisciplinary Major in Learning Health Systems, Department of Healthcare Sciences, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Statement Of Problem:
The design outcomes of dental crowns generated by artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer-aided design (CAD) systems have not been sufficiently evaluated in comparison with those produced by conventional CAD software programs.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to compare the precision, morphology, and structural stability of dental crowns designed using AI-based software programs and a conventional CAD software program.
Material And Methods:
A digital cast of the maxillary first molar was created from a typodont. Crowns were designed with 3 CAD software programs: a conventional software program (3Shape Dental Designer; 3Shape A/S) (CC group) and 2 AI-based software programs (3Shape Automate; 3Shape A/S) (AA group) and (Dentbird; Imagoworks Inc) (AD group) using the same prepared tooth standard tessellation language (STL) file. Sample size had been determined using an a priori power analysis with α=.05, 1-β=.80, and 10 specimens per group were fabricated using a 5-axis milling machine (BX5 PLUS; Dental Plus). The designs were evaluated for precision using root mean square (RMS) deviation, and the cusp angle of the functional cusp was analyzed for morphological comparison. Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed to compare the stress distribution among the groups. Statistical significance was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (α=.05).
Results:
The CC group showed the highest precision, presenting the lowest RMS deviation (13.9 ±3.8 µm), followed by the AD and AA groups, with significant intergroup differences (P<.001). For morphological evaluation, the AA group exhibited the lowest functional cusp angle (64.4 ±3.5 degrees), which was significantly smaller than those of the CC and AD groups (P<.001). FEA demonstrated that all crowns experienced maximum stress under 0-degree loading and minimum stress under 90-degree loading conditions. The AA group showed the highest von Mises stress (839.8 MPa), whereas the AD group exhibited the smallest displacement and the most homogeneous stress distribution.
Conclusions:
Conventional CAD exhibited higher precision than AI-based crown design systems, while AI-based designs showed altered cusp angle and occlusal morphology. FEA demonstrated design-dependent differences in stress distribution and displacement.
