ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Role of artificial intelligence in diagnosing pericoronal radiolucency.
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 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.
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI) significantly enhances the diagnosis of pericoronal radiolucency by accurately interpreting dental radiographs. Through advanced algorithms, AI can identify early signs of abnormalities near unerupted teeth. This helps clinicians differentiate between benign and malignant conditions, leading to more informed decisions; improved treatment plans, ultimately benefiting patient care and outcomes. Method: ology: A total of 2500 radiographs were screened of which 1070 radiographs were used in the study. 315 images of pericoronal radiolucency in mandibular third molars and 755 images of the normal mandibular third molars were included. The AI algorithms employed in the study were Logistic regression and Naive Bayes. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, recall, F1, AUC-ROC curve were used for performance evaluation. Results: This study found that Logistic regression model showed slightly higher accuracy than Naive Bayes model in predicting peri coronal radiolucency. In performance prediction for logistic regression model in predicting pericoronal radiolucency in third molars in 315 images, showed a slightly higher rate of prediction of 58.3 %, whereas, Naive Bayes model showed a comparatively lower prediction of pericoronal radiolucency, 52.2 %. During performance evaluation, Logistic regression performed better in CA, F1, and Recall, and Naive Bayes performed better in AUC and Precision model. Conclusion: The current study demonstrated that Logistic regression have slightly highest accuracy in detecting pericoronal radiolucency in digital orthopantomogram images, which is consistent with the normal radiographic evaluation. Also, the Naive Bayes algorithm showed a fairly considerable performance in the classification of pericoronal radiolucencies.
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.