ReviewJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2025
Toward Precision Diagnosis of Maxillofacial Pathologies by Artificial Intelligence Algorithms: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Human versus artificial intelligence in oral pathology diagnosis: a comparative study of ChatGPT, Grok, and MANUS.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This review highlights the potential of artificial intelligence algorithms, including machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), in improving the diagnosis and management of oral and maxillofacial diseases through advanced imaging techniques such as computerized tomography (CT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods: The current review was conducted on the basis of ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar (2010-2024) using keywords related to radiography, MRI, CT, CBCT, ML, DL, and maxillofacial pathology, with a focus on clinical applications. Results: The DL algorithms for detecting vertical root fractures achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 89.0% for premolars, with a sensitivity of 84.0% and specificity of 94.0%. It demonstrated an accuracy of 93% and a specificity of 88% in evaluating CBCT images. The GoogLeNet Inception v3 architecture achieved an AUC of 0.914, sensitivity of 96.1%, and specificity of 77.1% for CBCT, outperforming the panoramic radiograph, which had an AUC of 0.847, sensitivity of 88.2%, and specificity of 77.0%. CBCT demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy (91.4%) than panoramic images (84.6%), with odontogenic cystic lesions exhibiting the highest accuracy. The U-Net-based DL algorithm achieves recall, precision, and F1 scores of 0.742, 0.942, and 0.831 for metastatic lymph nodes, and 0.782, 0.990, and 0.874 for nonmetastatic lymph nodes, respectively. Conclusion: This study highlights the superior anatomical detail of CBCT, making it more reliable for diagnosing oral and dentomaxillofacial disorders. DL algorithms demonstrate high accuracy and sensitivity in diagnosing dental and odontogenic disorders and often outperform radiologists.
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.