ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2024
Comparison of deep learning methods for the radiographic detection of patients with different periodontitis stages.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence in Periodontology: A Systematic Review.Journal of periodontal research · 2026Pooled it
- An interdisciplinary framework for artificial intelligence, precision medicine, and ethical governance in periodontal care: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Radiographic diagnosis of periodontitis using artificial intelligence: a meta-analysis comparing binary and staging classifications across imaging modalities.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating the Performance and Implementation of the 2018 Classification of Periodontal Diseases: A Systematic Review and Survey.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Pooled it
- Fractal Analysis and Artificial Intelligence for Radiographic Detection of Periodontal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A novel AI-powered radiographic analysis surpasses specialists in stage II-IV periodontitis detection: a multicenter diagnostic study.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Automated Detection of Periodontal Bone Loss in Two-Dimensional (2D) Radiographs Using Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Periodontology: A Scoping Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Models in Detecting Peri-Implant Bone Loss: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Automated Staging of Periodontal Bone Loss Severity on Bite-wing Radiographs: An Eigen-CAM Explainability Mapping Approach.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- An Overview of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Dental Panoramic Radiography in Dentistry in the Community.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Review
- DMAF-Net: deformable multi-scale adaptive fusion network for dental structure detection with panoramic radiographs.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2024Article
- Insights into Predicting Tooth Extraction from Panoramic Dental Images: Artificial Intelligence vs. Dentists.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Hybrid two-stage CNN for detection and staging of periodontitis on panoramic radiographs.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
- Clinical validation of a web-based decision support system for periodontal diagnosis, risk assessment, and recall planning: A multicenter study.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study is to assess the accuracy of computer-assisted periodontal classification bone loss staging using deep learning (DL) methods on panoramic radiographs and to compare the performance of various models and layers.
methodsPanoramic radiographs were diagnosed and classified into 3 groups, namely "healthy," "Stage1/2," and "Stage3/4," and stored in separate folders. The feature extraction stage involved transferring and retraining the feature extraction layers and weights from 3 models, namely ResNet50, DenseNet121, and InceptionV3, which were proposed for classifying the ImageNet dataset, to 3 DL models designed for classifying periodontal bone loss. The features obtained from global average pooling (GAP), global max pooling (GMP), or flatten layers (FL) of convolutional neural network (CNN) models were used as input to the 8 different machine learning (ML) models. In addition, the features obtained from the GAP, GMP, or FL of the DL models were reduced using the minimum redundancy maximum relevance (mRMR) method and then classified again with 8 ML models.
resultsA total of 2533 panoramic radiographs, including 721 in the healthy group, 842 in the Stage1/2 group, and 970 in the Stage3/4 group, were included in the dataset. The average performance values of DenseNet121 + GAP-based and DenseNet121 + GAP + mRMR-based ML techniques on 10 subdatasets and ML models developed using 2 feature selection techniques outperformed CNN models.
conclusionsThe new DenseNet121 + GAP + mRMR-based support vector machine model developed in this study achieved higher performance in periodontal bone loss classification compared to other models in the literature by detecting effective features from raw images without the need for manual selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.