Artificial Intelligence Architectures in Oral Rehabilitation: A Focused Review of Deep Learning Models for Implant Planning, Prosthodontic Design, and Peri-Implant Diagnosis

Deep learning is increasingly integrated into oral rehabilitation workflows, particularly in implant planning, prosthodontic design automation, and peri-implant diagnosis. However, reported performance is heterogeneous and difficult to compare across tasks, modalities, and validation designs. The goal of this study was to critically analyze deep learning architecture families applied to oral rehabilitation and to provide task-driven selection guidance supported by an evidence table reporting dataset characteristics, validation strategy, and performance metrics. A focused narrative review was conducted using transparent, database-specific search criteria (final n = 10 included studies), emphasizing implant planning (cone–beam computed tomography [CBCT]-based segmentation), prosthodontic design (intraoral scan [IOS]/mesh inputs), and peri-implant diagnosis (periapical/panoramic radiographs). Evidence certainty for each clinical task was assessed using GRADE-informed ratings (High/Moderate/Low/Very Low). Extracted variables included clinical task, imaging modality, dataset size, architecture, validation strategy (internal vs. internal + external), split level, ground truth protocol, and performance metrics. A structured computational and hardware feasibility analysis was conducted for each architecture family to support real-world deployment planning. Encoder–decoder networks (U-Net/nnU-Net) dominate CBCT segmentation for implant planning, while detection architectures (Faster R-CNN, YOLO) support implant localization and peri-implant assessment on radiographs. Generative models (3D GANs, transformer-based point-to-mesh networks) enable crown design from three-dimensional scans. Hybrid CNN–Transformer architectures show promise for multimodal CBCT–IOS fusion, though direct evidence from the included studies remains limited to a single study. External validation remains uncommon yet essential given the risk of domain shift. In conclusion, architecture selection should be anchored to task geometry (2D vs. 3D), artifact burden, and required clinical output type. Reporting standards should prioritize dataset transparency, validation rigor, multi-center external testing, and uncertainty-aware outputs.