SynthesisCommunity dentistry and oral epidemiology2025
Deep Learning for Detecting Dental Plaque and Gingivitis From Oral Photographs: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Community dentistry and oral epidemiology, 2025. 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.
- Review
- Deep learning models for the detection of dental-findings and tooth-types using video data.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Analytical validation of Smilo.ai: evaluating an AI-driven platform for automated oral health screening and global diagnostic accessibility.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the performance of deep learning (DL) models in detecting dental plaque and gingivitis from red, green, and blue (RGB) intraoral photographs.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases up to January 31, 2025. The methodological characteristics and performance metrics of studies developing and validating DL models for classification, detection, or segmentation tasks were analysed. The risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework.
resultsFrom 3307 identified records, 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 10 focused on dental plaque, 11 on gingivitis, and two addressed both outcomes. The risk of bias was low in all QUADAS-2 domains for 11 studies, with low applicability concerns in nine. For dental plaque, DL models showed robust performance in the segmentation task, with intersection over union (IoU) values ranging from 0.64 to 0.86 (median 0.74). Three studies indicated that DL models outperformed dentists in identifying dental plaque when disclosing agents were not used. For gingivitis, the models demonstrated potential but underperformed compared to dental plaque, with IoU values ranging from 0.43 to 0.72 (median 0.63). The certainty of the evidence was moderate for dental plaque and low for gingivitis.
conclusionsDL models demonstrate promising potential for detecting dental plaque and gingivitis from intraoral photographs, with superior performance in plaque detection. Leveraging accessible imaging devices such as smartphones, these models can enhance teledentistry and may facilitate early screening for periodontal disease. However, the lack of external testing, multicenter studies, and reporting consistency highlights the need for further research to ensure real-world applicability.
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.