ArticleEuropean journal of orthodontics2025
Assessment of AI software's diagnostic accuracy in identifying impacted teeth in panoramic radiographs.
Article in European journal of orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Classification Performance of General-Purpose Multimodal AI Chatbots Versus Expert Radiologists in the Winter Classification of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars on CBCT-Derived Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for facial attractiveness assessment in orthodontics: model development and evaluation.European journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Sector Classification of Unerupted Maxillary Canines: A Deep Learning-Based Automated Framework Using Panoramic Radiographs.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in the Radiological Diagnosis of Impacted Maxillary Canines: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- AI for diagnosing malocclusions from 3D dental models.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesRecently, advancements have been made in the application and development of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in dentistry. This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of an AI-driven platform in identifying impacted teeth using panoramic radiographs. MATERIALS/
methodsA total of four sets of 50 orthopantomograms were examined: one set featured impacted canines, another included impacted third molars, a third contained impacted incisors, premolars, and both first and second molars, and the final set had no impacted teeth. Two human observers and the Diagnocat™ 1.0 software independently evaluated the images. The level of agreement was measured using Cohen's Kappa, and calculations for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), along with the corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals, were also conducted. The number of impacted teeth identified by both methods was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and McNemar's tests were performed to identify any differences in the proportions of identified impacted teeth between the two methods. Analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS version 29.0.
resultsThe evaluation of the AI software's diagnostic performance in recognizing impacted teeth compared with expert clinicians showed that Diagnocat performed exceptionally well in terms of specificity and positive predictive value (PPV), demonstrating a highly reliable identification of impacted teeth with no false positives. The sensitivity for identifying third molars was also good. However, there were significant limitations in sensitivity for other impacted teeth, suggesting that negative results might require further consideration. Cohen's Kappa indicated almost perfect agreement between Diagnocat™ and expert assessments for identifying impacted third molars, but only fair agreement for impacted canines and other teeth. Significant differences were observed in the average number and the proportions of impacted teeth detected by the two methods. LIMITATIONS: Employing a retrospective design and convenience sampling may limit the study's generalizability and clinical relevance.
conclusionWhile the AI-based platform shows promise in detecting impacted third molars, it is still insufficient to replace human evaluation as the standard for assessing impacted teeth in panoramic radiographs.
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.