SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Evaluating vision transformers and convolutional neural networks in the context of dental image processing: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A narrative review of artificial intelligence in dental imaging: from dataset design to clinical translation.Oral radiology · 2026Review
- Review
- DentSeg3: A Three-Branch Specialized Fusion Network for Dental Lesion Segmentation in Color Images.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Transformer and generative models in dental and maxillofacial imaging: Narrative review of clinical evidence and future directions.Imaging science in dentistry · 2026Review
- Beyond 2D and CNNs: Future Directions for Deep Learning in Periodontal Diagnostics.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Ability of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence to Identify Endodontic Instruments: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 3 Flash.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy of convolutional neural networks (CNN) and Vision Transformers (ViT) in the field of dental imaging, in order to examine in depth the potential, advantages, and limitations of both models in this domain.
methodsThe search strings used in the study were "(("Vision Transformer" OR ViT OR "Transformer architecture") AND ("Convolutional Neural Network" OR CNN OR ConvNet) AND (Dental OR Dentistry OR "Maxillofacial" OR "Oral Radiology") AND (Image OR Imaging OR Radiograph))". The search was conducted in January 2025. Two investigators independently evaluated the full texts of all eligible articles and excluded those that did not meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria.
resultsOf 2596 articles, 21 met the inclusion criteria. Depending on the task category, of the 21 studies that were reviewed, 14 (66.7%) utilized classification, while 7 (33.3%) utilized segmentation. Panoramic radiography is the most commonly used imaging modality (52.3%) and the ViT-based model was observed to have the highest performance (58%).
conclusionViT-based deep learning models tend to exhibit higher performance in many dental image analysis scenarios compared to traditional convolutional neural networks. However, in practice CNN and ViT approaches can be used in a complementary manner.
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.