Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37803022›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Deep learning and clustering approaches for dental implant size classification based on periapical radiographs.

Ji-Hyun Park, Hong Seok Moon, Hoi-In Jung, JaeJoon Hwang, Yoon-Ho Choi, Jong-Eun Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
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.

Ji-Hyun ParkDepartment of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Yonsei-ro 50-1, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Korea.
Hong Seok MoonDepartment of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Yonsei-ro 50-1, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Korea.
Hoi-In JungDepartment of Preventive Dentistry and Public Oral Health, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, 03722, Korea.
JaeJoon HwangDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, Pusan National University, Busan, 50612, Korea.
Yoon-Ho ChoiSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan, 46241, Korea.
Jong-Eun KimDepartment of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Yonsei-ro 50-1, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Korea. gomyou@yuhs.ac.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigated two artificial intelligence (AI) methods for automatically classifying dental implant diameter and length based on periapical radiographs. The first method, deep learning (DL), involved utilizing the pre-trained VGG16 model and adjusting the fine-tuning degree to analyze image data obtained from periapical radiographs. The second method, clustering analysis, was accomplished by analyzing the implant-specific feature vector derived from three key points coordinates of the dental implant using the k-means++ algorithm and adjusting the weight of the feature vector. DL and clustering model classified dental implant size into nine groups. The performance metrics of AI models were accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). The final DL model yielded performances above 0.994, 0.950, 0.994, 0.974, 0.952, 0.994, and 0.975, respectively, and the final clustering model yielded performances above 0.983, 0.900, 0.988, 0.923, 0.909, 0.988, and 0.947, respectively. When comparing the AI model before tuning and the final AI model, statistically significant performance improvements were observed in six out of nine groups for DL models and four out of nine groups for clustering models based on AUC-ROC. Two AI models showed reliable classification performances. For clinical applications, AI models require validation on various multicenter data.

Indexed as

Deep LearningDental ImplantsAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceCluster AnalysisDental Implants

Identifiers

PMID37803022
PMCPMC10558577

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.