Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38760686›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2024

Deep learning for determining the difficulty of endodontic treatment: a pilot study.

Hamed Karkehabadi, Elham Khoshbin, Nikoo Ghasemi, Amal Mahavi, Hossein Mohammad-Rahimi, Soroush Sadr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [Study of the Sealing and Antibacterial Properties of Bioceramic Root Canal Sealers Modified With Quaternary Ammonium Salt].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Medico-legal considerations in endodontics.British dental journal · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
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.

Hamed KarkehabadiDepartment of Endodontics, Dental School, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Elham KhoshbinDepartment of Endodontics, Dental School, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Nikoo GhasemiFaculty of Dentistry, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran.
Amal MahaviDepartment of Endodontics, Dental School, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Hossein Mohammad-RahimiTopic Group Dental Diagnostics and Digital Dentistry, ITU/WHO Focus Group AI on Health, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany.
Soroush SadrDepartment of Endodontics, Dental School, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran. 1984near@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo develop and validate a deep learning model for automated assessment of endodontic case difficulty from periapical radiographs.

methodsA dataset of 1,386 periapical radiographs was compiled from two clinical sites. Two dentists and two endodontists annotated the radiographs for difficulty using the "simple assessment" criteria from the American Association of Endodontists' case difficulty assessment form in the Endocase application. A classification task labeled cases as "easy" or "hard", while regression predicted overall difficulty scores. Convolutional neural networks (i.e. VGG16, ResNet18, ResNet50, ResNext50, and Inception v2) were used, with a baseline model trained via transfer learning from ImageNet weights. Other models was pre-trained using self-supervised contrastive learning (i.e. BYOL, SimCLR, MoCo, and DINO) on 20,295 unlabeled dental radiographs to learn representation without manual labels. Both models were evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation, with performance compared to seven human examiners (three general dentists and four endodontists) on a hold-out test set.

resultsThe baseline VGG16 model attained 87.62% accuracy in classifying difficulty. Self-supervised pretraining did not improve performance. Regression predicted scores with ± 3.21 score error. All models outperformed human raters, with poor inter-examiner reliability.

conclusionThis pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of automated endodontic difficulty assessment via deep learning models.

Indexed as

Deep LearningHumansNeural Networks, ComputerPilot ProjectsRadiography, DentalCase difficultyClassificationDeep learningEndodonticsRegressionSelf-supervised learning

Identifiers

PMID38760686
PMCPMC11102254

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.