ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Using artificial intelligence in the evaluation of periapical, caries, and restoration status: a new methodological and technological study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence Reporting Guidelines in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology: Specialty-Oriented Practical Guide.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- AI-Based Detection of Periapical Lesions in Endodontic Radiographs: a Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Maedica · 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
introductionThis study aimed to assess and compare the accuracy of the radiographic diagnosis of caries and periapical status conducted by undergraduate students, endodontics residency students (ERS), and artificial intelligence (AI) applications. The gold standard for diagnosis was based on the conclusions of an endodontist.
methodsAmong the 1,540 patients who visited the Department of Endodontics of the Faculty of Dentistry for endodontic treatment from 2020 to 2023, 68 patients met the inclusion criteria and were selected for this retrospective study. A total of 191 endodontically treated teeth were examined based on 68 panoramic radiographic images at two years post-treatment. The examiners were two undergraduate students, two endodontics residency students, two endodontists, and an AI application. Each examiner made independent diagnoses by evaluating the same panoramic radiographs and evaluating periapical conditions, caries, and restoration assets of the included teeth. Restoration and caries were scored as present or absent. The radiographic periapical status of teeth was evaluated using Periapical Index Scoring (PAI). Data were statistically analysed using the chi-squared test and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Intra-observer and inter-observer agreement were calculated using the kappa test (α = 0.05).
resultsThe AI system demonstrated moderate agreement with the gold standard in detecting caries (κ = 0.653) and dislodged coronal restorations (κ = 0.879), but only slight agreement for periapical status (κ = 0.155). In the detection of caries, AI showed 65.3% sensitivity and 96.8% specificity, while expert raters achieved over 91% in both metrics. For dislodged coronal restorations, AI yielded high performance, with 82.1% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 100% positive predictive value (PPV). In periapical status assessment, although AI achieved high sensitivity (92.9%) and negative predictive value (99%), its low specificity (58.6%) and PPV (15.3%) indicated a high false-positive rate. Overall, expert raters consistently outperformed students and AI across all diagnostic categories.
conclusionThese findings indicate that AI has the potential to support clinicians in detecting dislodged coronal restorations with high accuracy. Meanwhile, its performance in caries detection remains moderate, and its periapical status assessment is insufficient due to high false-positive rates. Although expert raters consistently demonstrated superior diagnostic performance, AI may serve as a supplementary tool in dental diagnostics, particularly for the identification of restoration failures. Further refinement and training of AI algorithms are necessary to enhance their reliability in comprehensive dental radiographic evaluation. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.