ArticleScientific reports2024
Detection of three-rooted mandibular first molars on panoramic radiographs using deep learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in the Study of Root and Canal Anatomy: A Comprehensive Review on Applications, Advantages, Challenges and Future Directions.European endodontic journal · 2025Review
- [An lightweight algorithm for multi-dimensional optimization of intelligent detection of dental abnormalities on panoramic oral X-ray images].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to develop a deep learning system for the detection of three-rooted mandibular first molars (MFMs) on panoramic radiographs and to assess its diagnostic performance. Panoramic radiographs, together with cone beam computed tomographic (CBCT) images of the same subjects, were retrospectively collected from 730 patients, encompassing a total of 1444 MFMs (367 teeth were three-rooted and the remaining 1077 teeth were two-rooted). Five convolutional neural network (CNN) models (ResNet-101 and - 50, DenseNet-201, MobileNet-v3 and Inception-v3) were employed to classify three- and two-rooted MFMs on the panoramic radiographs. The diagnostic performance of each model was evaluated using standard metrics, including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, negative predictive value, and F1 score. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed, with the CBCT examination taken as the gold standard.Among the five CNN models evaluated, ResNet-101 demonstrated superior diagnostic performance, and the AUC value attained was 0.907, significantly higher than that of all other models (all P < 0.01). The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 87.5%, 83.6%, and 88.9%, respectively. DenseNet-201, however, showed the lowest diagnostic performance among the five models (all P < 0.01), with an AUC value of 0.701 and an accuracy of 73.2%. Overall, the performance of the CNNs diminished when using image patches containing only the distal half of MFMs, with AUC values ranging between 0.680 and 0.800. In contrast, the diagnostic performance of the two clinicians was poorer, with AUC values of only 0.680 and 0.632, respectively. In conclusion, the CNN-based deep learning system exhibited a high level of accuracy in the detection of three-rooted MFMs on panoramic radiographs.
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.