Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40217522›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2025

Optimized classification of dental implants using convolutional neural networks and pre-trained models with preprocessed data.

Reza Ahmadi Lashaki, Zahra Raeisi, Nasim Razavi, Mehdi Goodarzi, Hossein Najafzadeh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Reza Ahmadi LashakiDepartment of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran. lashaki@tabrizu.ac.ir.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-7570-8884
Zahra RaeisiDepartment of Computer Science, University of Fairleigh Dickinson, Vancouver Campus, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-2334-3228
Nasim RazaviDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1347-9156
Mehdi GoodarziDepartment of Computer Software Engineering, Sepidan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sepidan, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-2510-6893
Hossein NajafzadehDepartment of Medical Bioengineering, Faculty of Advanced Medical Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7411-8480

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study evaluates the performance of various classifiers and pre-trained models for dental implant state classification using preprocessed radiography images with masks. METHODOLOGY: A dataset of 511 periapical images, including 275 for Bicon, 70 for Bego, and 166 for ITI implants, was expanded to 5110 images using data augmentation techniques such as rotation, flipping, and scaling. Preprocessing included resizing, sharpening, noise reduction, CLAHE-based contrast enhancement, implant-specific masking, and normalization. Classifiers including Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Convolutional Support Vector Machine (CSVM), Convolutional Decision Tree (CDT), and Convolutional Random Forest (CRF) were employed. Pre-trained models such as VGG16, ResNet50, and Xception enhanced feature extraction. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and ROC AUC, with fivefold cross-validation ensuring robustness.

resultsCRF achieved the highest performance for ITI with Bego implants, with accuracy of 0.8966, precision of 0.9364, recall of 0.9253, F1 score of 0.9304, and ROC AUC of 0.9351. CNN delivered the best results for Bicon with Bego implants, achieving 0.9533 accuracy. Among pre-trained models, VGG16 with preprocessed data achieved superior results for Bicon vs. ITI classification, with 0.9865 accuracy and 0.9877 ROC AUC. Data augmentation and preprocessing significantly improved classifier performance.

conclusionPreprocessing steps, coupled with data augmentation, enhanced classification performance, ensuring robustness across models. CRF and CNN were the top-performing classifiers, with VGG16 excelling among pre-trained models. These results highlight the importance of data augmentation and preprocessing in improving dental implant classification accuracy.

Indexed as

Convolutional Neural NetworksDental ImplantsImage Processing, Computer-AssistedDecision TreesHumansSupport Vector MachineDental ImplantsClassificationCNNDental implants radiography imagesPre-trained models

Identifiers

PMID40217522
PMCPMC11987321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.