ArticleBMC oral health2024
Application of deep learning and feature selection technique on external root resorption identification on CBCT images.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-Driven Quantitative Dental Imaging: A Clinical Framework for Assessing Root Resorption Across Treatment Modalities.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of AI-Based Cloud Software Regarding the Detection of Endodontic Findings on CBCT: A Single-Centre Cross-Sectional Validation Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Automated deep learning detection of orthodontically induced external apical root resorption in maxillary incisors on panoramic radiographs.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Models for the Detection and Quantification of Orthodontically Induced Root Resorption Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and Gemini in detecting external apical root resorption on panoramic radiographs of orthodontic patients : Artificial intelligence performance in detecting root resorption.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2025Article
- Multi-label diagnosis of dental conditions from panoramic x-rays using attention-enhanced deep learning.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Validation of an AI-aided 3D method for enhanced volumetric quantification of external root resorption in orthodontics.The Angle orthodontist · 2025Article
- Shaping Orthodontics of the Future: Concepts and Implications from a Cellular and Molecular Perspective.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Automatic detection of orthodontically induced external root resorption based on deep convolutional neural networks using CBCT images.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Correction: Application of deep learning and feature selection technique on external root resorption identification on CBCT images.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- AI-driven dynamic orthodontic treatment management: personalized progress tracking and adjustments-a narrative review.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Review
- A hierarchical deep learning approach for diagnosing impacted canine-induced root resorption via cone-beam computed tomography.BMC oral health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence has been proven to improve the identification of various maxillofacial lesions. The aim of the current study is two-fold: to assess the performance of four deep learning models (DLM) in external root resorption (ERR) identification and to assess the effect of combining feature selection technique (FST) with DLM on their ability in ERR identification.
methodsExternal root resorption was simulated on 88 extracted premolar teeth using tungsten bur in different depths (0.5 mm, 1 mm, and 2 mm). All teeth were scanned using a Cone beam CT (Carestream Dental, Atlanta, GA). Afterward, a training (70%), validation (10%), and test (20%) dataset were established. The performance of four DLMs including Random Forest (RF) + Visual Geometry Group 16 (VGG), RF + EfficienNetB4 (EFNET), Support Vector Machine (SVM) + VGG, and SVM + EFNET) and four hybrid models (DLM + FST: (i) FS + RF + VGG, (ii) FS + RF + EFNET, (iii) FS + SVM + VGG and (iv) FS + SVM + EFNET) was compared. Five performance parameters were assessed: classification accuracy, F1-score, precision, specificity, and error rate. FST algorithms (Boruta and Recursive Feature Selection) were combined with the DLMs to assess their performance.
resultsRF + VGG exhibited the highest performance in identifying ERR, followed by the other tested models. Similarly, FST combined with RF + VGG outperformed other models with classification accuracy, F1-score, precision, and specificity of 81.9%, weighted accuracy of 83%, and area under the curve (AUC) of 96%. Kruskal Wallis test revealed a significant difference (p = 0.008) in the prediction accuracy among the eight DLMs.
conclusionIn general, all DLMs have similar performance on ERR identification. However, the performance can be improved by combining FST with DLMs.
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.