Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41305904›Full record

ArticleJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2026

Development and evaluation of an AI model for dental implant type detection: A comparison of diagnostic accuracy between a deep learning model and dental professionals.

Walaa Magdy Ahmed, Amr Ahmed Azhari, Abdulrahman Almufti, Zainab Majed Alsadah, Amr Fawzy Abdelhamid Ahmed, Anas Lahiq, Khaled Ahmed Fawaz

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Walaa Magdy AhmedDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1810-8733
Amr Ahmed AzhariDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8749-4714
Abdulrahman AlmuftiMaster Prosthodontic Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Zainab Majed AlsadahDental Department, East Jeddah General Hospital, Ministry of Health, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Amr Fawzy Abdelhamid AhmedDepartment Artificial Intelligence, Tachyhealth Company, Lewes, Delaware, USA.
Anas LahiqDepartment of Prosthodontics, Aseer Dental Specialized Center, Abha, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8767-1313
Khaled Ahmed FawazDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2368-1545

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop a deep-learning system for identifying five dental implant brands from periapical radiographs and compare its diagnostic accuracy with dental professionals and evaluate successive You Only Look Once (YOLO) architectures (v7-v12) to justify model selection. MATERIALS AND

methodsA dataset of 5851 periapical radiographs was compiled and divided into training, validation, and test partitions (80/10/10). After filtering to five brands (Adin, Dentium, Noris, OSSTEM, and Straumann), YOLO-based object detection models (versions 7-12) were trained and tested under identical conditions. The YOLOv12x model was adopted for final evaluation based on its optimal balance of accuracy and inference speed. Human performance was assessed using 100 held-out test images (20 per brand) via a multiple-choice web survey distributed to six clinician groups. Diagnostic metrics included mean average precision at IoU 0.50 (mAP@50), mAP@50-95, precision, recall, and accuracy.

resultsThe model achieved an mAP@50 of 0.989 (98.9%), an mAP@50-95 of 0.900 (90.0%), a precision of 0.969 (96.9%), and a recall of 0.977 (97.7%) across brands. Across YOLO generations, performance improved from mAP@50-95 = 0.817 (YOLOv7) to 0.905 (YOLOv12x). Fifty-two clinicians completed 5,200 image evaluations; the model significantly outperformed all clinician subgroups (one-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD, p < 0.001). Transformer-based DF-DETR achieved mAP@50-95 = 0.878, confirming YOLOv12x's superior efficiency-accuracy trade-off.

conclusionsA high-performing model identified implant brands on periapical radiographs and outperformed clinicians across experience levels. Comparative analysis across YOLO architectures validated its measurable advantage in accuracy and speed. Lack of external validation and dataset imbalance are important limitations; future work will include external, multisite data and human-AI workflow evaluation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDeep LearningDental ImplantsDentistsHumansRadiography, DentalDental ImplantsDeep Learning Modeldental implantdental professionalsYOLOv12

Identifiers

PMID41305904
PMCPMC12791189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.