SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2025
Evaluating YOLO for dental caries diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging Artificial Intelligence Technologies for Evaluation of Dental Composite Restorations: A Scoping Review.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Deep Learning-Based Dental Caries Diagnosis: A Modality-Stratified Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Faster R-CNN and Mask R-CNN.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRecent advancements in the You Only Look Once (YOLO) algorithm show promise for dental caries diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of different YOLO versions using photographic and radiographic images for caries detection.
methodsWe searched PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies up to December 12, 2024. Studies using any YOLO version for caries detection were included. Binary diagnostic accuracy data were extracted to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) using a bivariate random-effects model. Quality was assessed with QUADAS-2 and the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS). This review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024615440).
resultsWe included 15 studies in the systematic review and 14 in the meta-analysis. Overall, YOLO-based models achieved a pooled sensitivity of 79.3% and specificity of 84.9%, with an AUC of 0.832. YOLO using radiographic images demonstrated higher specificity (92.5% vs 72.0%) and AUC (0.847 vs 0.735) than using photographic images, while sensitivity was similar (78.6% vs 80.0%). Differences between YOLO versions (v5 and earlier vs v6 and later) and the use of external validation did not significantly affect diagnostic accuracy. DISCUSSION: Radiograph-based YOLO models showed superior specificity to photograph-based models, reflecting the higher diagnostic detail of radiographs. However, photographic approaches are completely radiation-free and more accessible, which could benefit screening in low-resource settings. Newer YOLO versions did not significantly outperform older versions, likely due to the limited complexity of the task and dataset constraints in current studies.
conclusionsYOLO algorithms provide a reliable tool for dental caries detection. Radiograph imaging combined with YOLO offers enhanced diagnostic specificity, while even older YOLO versions remain effective for caries detection in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40702334What 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.