ArticleOral radiology2026
Applications and clinical translation of artificial intelligence in CBCT-based detection of endodontic lesions: a scoping review.
Article in Oral radiology, 2026. 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.
- Diagnostic Performance of AI-Based Cloud Software Regarding the Detection of Endodontic Findings on CBCT: A Single-Centre Cross-Sectional Validation Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Detecting Residual Root Canal Filling Material After Retreatment: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Digital Microscopy Compared with Microcomputed Tomography.Dentistry journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) especially deep learning (DL) has significantly revolutionized medical image analysis, which include dental diagnostics. In endodontics, the combination of AI and CBCT provides automatic detection, classification, and segmentation of periapical lesions.
methodThis scoping review used the Arksey and O'Malley model, as updated by Levac et al., and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. An extensive search strategy was developed to identify pertinent studies in various electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The search was conducted for 2010-2025 articles. Studies were included if they applied AI models to CBCT imaging for detecting, classifying, or segmenting periapical lesions. Data were charted on model types, imaging approaches, diagnostic metrics, and clinical translation.
resultAI models used were CNN-based models including U-Net, DenseNet, custom architectures such as PALNet, and commercial packages such as Diagnocat. High reported diagnostic performance was sensitivity of 67.3% to 97.1% and AUC of up to 0.98. While several studies demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy and potential for clinical decision support, the majority were retrospective, used small or homogenous datasets, and lacked external validation or standard ground truth comparisons (e.g., histological correlation).
conclusionAI demonstrates promising potential in enhancement of the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of CBCT-based periapical lesion assessment. DL models such as U-Net, PAL-Net, and commercial software as of Diagnocat, have shown good performance on the tasks of segmentation and classification. However, additional prospective validation, model calibration, and real-world clinical use, studies are necessary to establish reliability and generalizability. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The evidence from the current review leans towards an increasing body of evidence in support of AI use in CBCT-based periapical lesion detection. Further, reported the clinical potential of AI to decrease diagnostic time, increase consistency, and assist less experienced operators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41188594What 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.