SynthesisOral radiology2026
Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence for facial fracture detection: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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.
- Digital intelligence in dental technology education: curriculum and practical teaching reform.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models for detecting facial bone fractures on computed tomography (CT), cone-beam CT (CBCT), and plain radiographs.
methodsOriginal studies applying machine learning or deep learning algorithms for facial fracture detection in humans were included if they reported diagnostic accuracy metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, or area under the curve (AUC). PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to June 3, 2025. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251085644).
resultsA total of 23 studies were included. Object detection models such as YOLOv5 and Faster R-CNN-demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in localizing facial fractures. Classification models such as ResNet and Swin Transformer achieved AUCs frequently exceeding 0.90. Segmentation and hybrid frameworks further improved anatomical specificity. However, the generalizability of findings was constrained by predominantly retrospective, single-centre study designs, limited sample sizes, inconsistent annotation practices, and the absence of external or prospective validation.
conclusionAI models show high diagnostic performance for detecting facial fractures across multiple anatomical regions and imaging modalities. Further multicentre prospective studies and the integration of explainable AI are essential for clinical adoption. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: AI-assisted diagnostic models have the potential to enhance facial fracture detection accuracy, especially in emergency and resource-limited settings. Their integration into radiology workflows could reduce interpretation time, support less experienced clinicians, and improve patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41291186What 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.