ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of YOLO variants for dental implant brand identification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This research primarily focuses on identifying implant brands, specifically Bicon, Bego and ITI, and detecting their locations on the periapical and panoramic X-ray images using YOLO (You Only Look Once) object detection algorithm. A dataset of 2290 annotated images sourced from Roboflow.com was utilized. The dataset was augmented by applying 50% probability of horizontal flip, 50% probability of vertical flip, equal probability of one of the following 90-degree rotations: none, clockwise, counter-clockwise and salt and pepper noise by the Roboflow. Prior to training, the dataset was splitted into three subsets: train of 1893 samples, test of 218 samples and validation of 179 samples. The detection algorithm was trained using multiple YOLOv8, YOLOv9, YOLOv10 and YOLOv11 models and their sub-versions medium and large variants. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the models, the performance metrics including precision, recall, F1 score, and mAP@50 (mean Average Precision at Intersection over Union (IoU) threshold 0.50) were analyzed. The highest precision values are 98% for ITI with YOLOv8m, 91.9% for Bicon with YOLOv10m and YOLOv11l, 91.9% for Bego with YOLOv10m and 93.1% for all classes with YOLOv10m. The top-performing recall values were achieved at 94.1% for Bego using YOLOv11l and YOLOv9m, 94.9% for Bicon using YOLOv9m and YOLOv8m, 94.7% for ITI using YOLOv10m and 92.9% for all classes using YOLOv8l. The optimal F1 scores were acquired through 88% for Bego by YOLOv11l, 92.1% for Bicon by YOLOv10m, 96% for ITI by YOLOv11m and %91.4 for all classes by YOLOv10m. YOLO models are effective tools for dental imaging, providing a reliable and efficient approach to automating implant identification. Future studies could improve detection accuracy by utilizing larger and more diverse datasets and exploring other potential applications in dental imaging.
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.