Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32295304›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020

Transfer Learning via Deep Neural Networks for Implant Fixture System Classification Using Periapical Radiographs.

Jong-Eun Kim, Na-Eun Nam, June-Sung Shim, Yun-Hoa Jung, Bong-Hae Cho, Jae Joon Hwang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
15.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jong-Eun KimDepartment of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Yonsei-ro 50-1, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea.
Na-Eun NamDepartment of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Yonsei-ro 50-1, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea.
June-Sung ShimDepartment of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Yonsei-ro 50-1, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea.
Yun-Hoa JungDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Dental Research Institute, Yangsan 50610, Korea.
Bong-Hae ChoDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Dental Research Institute, Yangsan 50610, Korea.
Jae Joon HwangDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Dental Research Institute, Yangsan 50610, Korea.
Pusan National University Dental Hospital · KRYonsei University · KR

Funding

The Yonsei University College of Dentistry Fund 6-2019-0008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the absence of accurate medical records, it is critical to correctly classify implant fixture systems using periapical radiographs to provide accurate diagnoses and treatments to patients or to respond to complications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether deep neural networks can identify four different types of implants on intraoral radiographs. In this study, images of 801 patients who underwent periapical radiographs between 2005 and 2019 at Yonsei University Dental Hospital were used. Images containing the following four types of implants were selected: Brånemark Mk TiUnite, Dentium Implantium, Straumann Bone Level, and Straumann Tissue Level. SqueezeNet, GoogLeNet, ResNet-18, MobileNet-v2, and ResNet-50 were tested to determine the optimal pre-trained network architecture. The accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score were calculated for each network using a confusion matrix. All five models showed a test accuracy exceeding 90%. SqueezeNet and MobileNet-v2, which are small networks with less than four million parameters, showed an accuracy of approximately 96% and 97%, respectively. The results of this study confirmed that convolutional neural networks can classify the four implant fixtures with high accuracy even with a relatively small network and a small number of images. This may solve the inconveniences associated with unnecessary treatments and medical expenses caused by lack of knowledge about the exact type of implant.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceconvolutional neural networksdeep learningImplant fixture classificationperiapical radiographs

Identifiers

PMID32295304
PMCPMC7230319
OpenAlexW3017228718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.