Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34416824›Full record

ArticleJournal of dental research2022

Caries Detection on Intraoral Images Using Artificial Intelligence.

J Kühnisch, O Meyer, M Hesenius, R Hickel, V Gruhn

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dental research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
26.2field-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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 207 citations in OpenAlex.

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

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J KühnischDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, School of Dentistry, Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4063-2291
O MeyerInstitute for Software Engineering, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
M HeseniusInstitute for Software Engineering, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
R HickelDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, School of Dentistry, Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
V GruhnInstitute for Software Engineering, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
University of Duisburg-Essen · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although visual examination (VE) is the preferred method for caries detection, the analysis of intraoral digital photographs in machine-readable form can be considered equivalent to VE. While photographic images are rarely used in clinical practice for diagnostic purposes, they are the fundamental requirement for automated image analysis when using artificial intelligence (AI) methods. Considering that AI has not been used for automatic caries detection on intraoral images so far, this diagnostic study aimed to develop a deep learning approach with convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for caries detection and categorization (test method) and to compare the diagnostic performance with respect to expert standards. The study material consisted of 2,417 anonymized photographs from permanent teeth with 1,317 occlusal and 1,100 smooth surfaces. All the images were evaluated into the following categories: caries free, noncavitated caries lesion, or caries-related cavitation. Each expert diagnosis served as a reference standard for cyclic training and repeated evaluation of the AI methods. The CNN was trained using image augmentation and transfer learning. Before training, the entire image set was divided into a training and test set. Validation was conducted by selecting 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the available images from the training set. The statistical analysis included calculations of the sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). The CNN was able to correctly detect caries in 92.5% of cases when all test images were considered (SE, 89.6; SP, 94.3; AUC, 0.964). If the threshold of caries-related cavitation was chosen, 93.3% of all tooth surfaces were correctly classified (SE, 95.7; SP, 81.5; AUC, 0.955). It can be concluded that it was possible to achieve more than 90% agreement in caries detection using the AI method with standardized, single-tooth photographs. Nevertheless, the current approach needs further improvement.

Indexed as

Dental CariesToothArtificial IntelligenceDental Caries SusceptibilityHumansNeural Networks, ComputerROC Curvecaries assessmentcaries diagnosticsclinical evaluationconvolutional neural networksdeep learningvisual examination

Identifiers

PMID34416824
PMCPMC8808002
OpenAlexW3194416978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.