Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38887333›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Classification of Periapical and Bitewing Radiographs as Periodontally Healthy or Diseased by Deep Learning Algorithms.

Muhammet Burak Yavuz, Nichal Sali, Sevda Kurt Bayrakdar, Cemre Ekşi, Büşra Seda İmamoğlu, İbrahim Şevki Bayrakdar, Özer Çelik, Kaan Orhan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Utilizing Deep Learning for Diagnosing Radicular Cysts.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    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

8 authors.

Muhammet Burak YavuzPeriodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, TUR.
Nichal SaliPeriodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, TUR.
Sevda Kurt BayrakdarPeriodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, TUR.
Cemre EkşiPeriodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, TUR.
Büşra Seda İmamoğluOrthodontics, Hamidiye Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, TUR.
İbrahim Şevki BayrakdarOral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, TUR.
Özer ÇelikMathematics and Computer Science, Faculty of Science, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, TUR.
Kaan OrhanOral, Dental, and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Ankara, TUR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this artificial intelligence (AI) study was to develop a deep learning algorithm capable of automatically classifying periapical and bitewing radiography images as either periodontally healthy or unhealthy and to assess the algorithm's diagnostic success. Materials and methods The sample of the study consisted of 1120 periapical radiographs (560 periodontally healthy, 560 periodontally unhealthy) and 1498 bitewing radiographs (749 periodontally healthy, 749 periodontally ill). From the main datasets of both radiography types, three sub-datasets were randomly created: a training set (80%), a validation set (10%), and a test set (10%). Using these sub-datasets, a deep learning algorithm was developed with the YOLOv8-cls model (Ultralytics, Los Angeles, California, United States) and trained over 300 epochs. The success of the developed algorithm was evaluated using the confusion matrix method. Results The AI algorithm achieved classification accuracies of 75% or higher for both radiograph types. For bitewing radiographs, the sensitivity, specificity, precision, accuracy, and F1 score values were 0.8243, 0.7162, 0.7439, 0.7703, and 0.7821, respectively. For periapical radiographs, the sensitivity, specificity, precision, accuracy, and F1 score were 0.7500, 0.7500, 0.7500, 0.7500, and 0.7500, respectively. Conclusion The AI models developed in this study demonstrated considerable success in classifying periodontal disease. Future applications may involve employing AI algorithms for assessing periodontal status across various types of radiography images and for automated disease detection.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebitewingperiapicalperiodontal diseaseperiodontal health

Identifiers

PMID38887333
PMCPMC11181894

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.