ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2024
Comparison between observer-based and AI-based reading of CBCT datasets: An interrater-reliability study.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence in Periodontology: A Systematic Review.Journal of periodontal research · 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
- Artificial intelligence in orthodontics: clinical maturity, evidence gaps, and emerging applications-a narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Review
- Fractal Analysis and Artificial Intelligence for Radiographic Detection of Periodontal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for detection and classification of furcation defects using radiographic imaging: A systematic review.Imaging science in dentistry · 2025Review
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Diagnosis of Periodontal/Peri-Implant Diseases: A Narrative Review.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Review
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
Objective: To assess the performance of human observers and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in detecting periodontal lesions in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), a total of 38 datasets were examined. Three human readers and a CNN-based solution were employed to evaluate the presence of periodontal pathologies in these datasets. Materials and Methods: Datasets were acquired with a Veraview X800 L P (JMorita Mfg. Corp., Kyoto, Japan). Three general dentists, previously calibrated by a general principal investigator, read the datasets in 3D MPR mode using Horos(LGPL license at Horosproject.org and sponsored by Nimble Co LLC d/b/a Purview in Annapolis, MD, USA) as a DICOM reader. All pathological changes including vertical bone loss, furcation involvement, and periradicular osteolysis were detected. Furthermore, the same datasets were analyzed automatically by Diagnocat (Diagnocat LLC, Prague, Czech Republic), a deep CNN. Finally, the performance of the dentists and the CNN were compared and evaluated. Results: The CNN's performance was significantly lower compared to the human readers in the search for different types of lesions. The human observers achieved good to very good interobserver agreement, except for the evaluation of the vertical lesions, which resulted in a moderate agreement. Conclusion: The CNN used in this study was found to be ineffective in identifying periodontal lesions and was not adequately trained to offer significant assistance in the automated evaluation of periodontal lesions in CBCT datasets.
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.