ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Machine learning in dentistry: a scoping review.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Associations Between Systemic Diseases and Dental Pulp Diagnoses: A Retrospective Chart Study Using a Locally Deployed Large Language Model.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- A novel AI system for preliminary triage support in single-tooth edentulous spaces using intraoral images.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- From Algorithmic Performance to Clinical Translation: Translational Readiness of Imaging-Based Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry-A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Informed Consent in AI-Augmented Dentistry and Dental Research: A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Decoding Temporomandibular Disorders: Identifying Stage-Specific and Functional Patterns in the Articular Disc.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Review
- Rethinking Diagnostic Performance Metrics in Imaging Artificial Intelligence: Lessons from Caries Detection on Radiographs.Caries research · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Concise Review of Reporting Checklists and Guidelines.International dental journal · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI), specifically machine learning (ML), is increasingly applied in decision-making for dental diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. However, the methodological completeness of published models has not been rigorously assessed. We performed a scoping review of PubMed-indexed articles (English, 1 January 2018â€'31 December 2023) that used ML in any dental specialty. Each study was evaluated with the TRIPOD + AI rubric for key reporting elements such as data preprocessing, model validation, and clinical performance. Out of 1,506 identified studies, 280 met the inclusion criteria. Oral and maxillofacial radiology (27.5%), oral and maxillofacial surgery (15.0%), and general dentistry (14.3%) were the most represented specialties. Sixty-four studies (22.9%) lacked comparison with a clinical reference standard or existing model performing the same task. Most models focused on classification (59.6%), whereas generative applications were relatively rare (1.4%). Key gaps included limited assessment of model bias, poor outlier reporting, scarce calibration evaluation, low reproducibility, and restricted data access. ML could transform dental care, but robust calibration assessment and equity evaluation are critical for real-world adoption. Future research should prioritize error explainability, outlier reporting, reproducibility, fairness, and prospective validation.
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.