ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Artificial intelligence based techniques for caries risk prediction and assessment: A scoping review.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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.
- Salivary pH within multifactorial caries risk assessment in children: observational clinical evidence using the Cariogram platform.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Editorial: Special issue on application of artificial intelligence in oral and craniofacial care.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this scoping review was to systematically search through the evidence for the applications of artificial intelligence (AI) for caries risk assessment (CRA) or prediction (CRP), determine the scope of the methodologies used, summarize their performance metrics, and report limitations and challenges (if any). Design: A structured and comprehensive search of three electronic databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar, was performed to yield results from 2013 to 2023. Studies were selected through title, abstract, and full-text screening based on the selection criteria. Charting of the extracted data was performed using a self-designed checklist with eight dimensions. Results: The electronic database search retrieved 3059 articles. Ultimately, 13 articles were included in the review. The most used methods were logistic regression (n = 9) and random forest (n = 8). The performance of the included models was measured variably. The reported performance metrics of the models were heterogeneous in nature; the sensitivity ranged from 0.59 to 0.996, while the specificity ranged from 0.531 to 0.943. The most frequently utilized predictors include socio-demographic factors, oral hygiene habits, and dietary habits. Conclusion: Of the AI-based CRA models analyzed, machine learning algorithms were most frequently used. This review highlights that AI methods most probably show superior specificity and better performance than traditional methods. The application of these algorithms can have significant implications for the population impacted by pertinent chronic diseases that are avoidable through risk reduction, such as dental caries.
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.