ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Machine learning and deep learning models for the diagnosis of apical periodontitis: a scoping review.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of artificial intelligence in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Capabilities of Large Language Models in Paediatric Dentistry.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Prospective applications of artificial intelligence for the diagnosis of oral leukoplakia: a scoping review.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
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
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the existing literature on the use of machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models for diagnosing apical periodontitis (AP) in humans. MATERIALS AND
methodsA scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley framework. The PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases were searched, focusing on articles using ML/DL approaches for AP diagnosis. No restrictions were applied. Two independent reviewers screened publications and charted data in predefined Excel tables for analysis.
resultsNineteen publications focused on diagnosing AP by identifying periapical radiolucent lesions (PRLs) in dental radiographs were included. The average sensitivity and specificity for reviewed models were 83% and 90%, respectively. Only three studies explored the direct impact of artificial intelligence (AI) assistance on clinicians' diagnostic performance. Both consistently showed improved sensitivity without compromising specificity. Significant variability in dataset sizes, labeling techniques, and algorithm configurations was noticed.
conclusionsFindings affirm AI models' effectiveness and transformative potential in diagnosing AP by improving the accurate detection of periapical radiolucencies using dental radiographs. However, the lack of standardized reporting on crucial aspects of methodology and performance metrics prevents establishing a definitive diagnostic approach using AI. Further studies are needed to expand AI applications in AP diagnosis beyond radiographic analysis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: AI can potentially improve diagnostic accuracy in AP diagnosis by enhancing the sensitivity of PRL detection in dental radiographs without compromising specificity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39419893What 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.