Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40026368›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oral health2025

Artificial intelligence-produced radiographic enhancements in dental clinical care: provider and patient perspectives.

Lyubov D Slashcheva, Kelly Schroeder, Lisa J Heaton, Hannah J Cheung, Brenda Prosa, Nicole Ferrian, Jesse Grantz, Deborah Jacobi, John J O'Malley, Michael Helgeson and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Supernumerary molars' prevalence in a Romanian population sample and their potential value in forensic investigation.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie
    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

11 authors.

Lyubov D SlashchevaApple Tree Dental, Corporate Office, Brighton, MN, United States.
Kelly SchroederAnalytics and Data Insights, CareQuest Institute for Oral Health, Boston, MA, United States.
Lisa J HeatonAnalytics and Data Insights, CareQuest Institute for Oral Health, Boston, MA, United States.
Hannah J CheungAnalytics and Data Insights, CareQuest Institute for Oral Health, Boston, MA, United States.
Brenda ProsaApple Tree Dental, Corporate Office, Brighton, MN, United States.
Nicole FerrianApple Tree Dental, Corporate Office, Brighton, MN, United States.
Jesse GrantzApple Tree Dental, Corporate Office, Brighton, MN, United States.
Deborah JacobiApple Tree Dental, Corporate Office, Brighton, MN, United States.
John J O'MalleyAnalytics and Data Insights, CareQuest Institute for Oral Health, Boston, MA, United States.
Michael HelgesonApple Tree Dental, Corporate Office, Brighton, MN, United States.
Eric P TranbyAnalytics and Data Insights, CareQuest Institute for Oral Health, Boston, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based software can be used with dental radiographs to facilitate dental providers' diagnoses and to educate patients about their oral health conditions. The goal of this study was to survey dental providers and patients about the use of AI-enhanced radiographs in the diagnostic and patient education processes. Methods: Within their Community Collaborative Practice model, Apple Tree Dental in Minnesota implemented the use of an AI software platform that annotates carious lesions and periodontal measurements on dental radiographs. Before and after implementation of this software, providers (dentists, dental hygienists, dental therapists, and dental assistants) were surveyed about what benefits and challenges they anticipated and experienced in using the AI software. A small-scale study of patients who viewed AI-generated annotations on their own radiographs examined patient perspectives on the use of this software. Results: Dental therapists reported using the software most often, with 57.2% using the software at least 50% of their clinical time; 79% of dental assistants reported using the software 25% of the time or less. While the majority of providers ( Discussion: While provider and patient perceptions of the use of AI software in dental care were positive overall, attitudes among providers were mixed regarding its effectiveness in diagnosing dental disease and improving work efficiency. More research is needed to determine whether use of AI software in clinical dental practice produces changes in treatment recommendations by providers or in patient adherence to these recommendations.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedental cariesdental patientsdental providersperiodontal diseasesoftware

Identifiers

PMID40026368
PMCPMC11868064

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.