ArticleBMC oral health2025
Deep learning algorithms for detecting fractured instruments in root canals.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence in periapical radiography: a systematic review.Odontology · 2026Pooled it
- Revolutionizing endodontics: the impact and innovations of artificial intelligence.BMC oral health · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence in Endodontic Diagnosis and Treatment Evaluation: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Deep Learning-Based Detection of Separated Root Canal Instruments in Panoramic Radiographs Using a UDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Expert consensus on management of instrument separation in root canal therapy.International journal of oral science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying fractured endodontic instruments (FEIs) in periapical radiographs (PAs) is a critical yet challenging aspect of root canal treatment (RCT) due to anatomical complexities and overlapping structures. Deep learning (DL) models offer potential solutions, yet their comparative performance in this domain remains underexplored.
methodsA dataset of 700 annotated PAs, including 381 teeth with FEIs, was divided into training, validation, and test sets (60/20/20 split). Five DL models-DenseNet201, EfficientNet B0, ResNet-18, VGG-19, and MaxVit-T-were trained using transfer learning and data augmentation techniques. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, AUC and MCC. Statistical analysis included the Friedman test with post-hoc corrections.
resultsDenseNet201 achieved the highest AUC (0.900) and MCC (0.810), outperforming other models in FEI detection. ResNet-18 demonstrated robust results, while EfficientNet B0 and VGG-19 provided moderate performance. MaxVit-T underperformed, with metrics near random guessing. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences among models (p < 0.05), but pairwise comparisons were not significant.
conclusionsDenseNet201's superior performance highlights its clinical potential for FEI detection, while ResNet-18 offers a balance between accuracy and computational efficiency. The findings highlight the need for model-task alignment and optimization in medical imaging applications.
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.