ArticleBMC oral health2024
Deep learning for determining the difficulty of endodontic treatment: a pilot study.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence in periapical radiography: a systematic review.Odontology · 2026Pooled it
- [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 · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy and repeatability of ChatGPT using textual and radiographic data in reversible pulpitis: a retrospective diagnostic study.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Computational Insights into Root Canal Treatment: A Survey of Selected Methods in Imaging, Segmentation, Morphological Analysis, and Clinical Management.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in The Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognostication in Endodontics: A Comprehensive Literature Review.European endodontic journal · 2025Review
- Multi-Regional deep learning models for identifying dental restorations and prosthesis in panoramic radiographs.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in the Study of Root and Canal Anatomy: A Comprehensive Review on Applications, Advantages, Challenges and Future Directions.European endodontic journal · 2025Review
- Deep learning-based assessment of pulp involvement in primary molars using YOLO v8.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Medico-legal considerations in endodontics.British dental journal · 2025Review
- A data-driven method for surgeon-specific difficulty assessment in third molar extraction.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.