SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Radiographic diagnosis of periodontitis using artificial intelligence: a meta-analysis comparing binary and staging classifications across imaging modalities.
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 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.
- From Panoramic Radiographs to AI-Assisted Radiographic Periodontal Charting: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Machine learning for classification of periodontal defects (vertical versus horizontal) using CBCT datasets.Bioinformation · 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
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise for diagnosing periodontal disease from dental radiographs. However, diagnostic performance across classification types (binary classification vs. staging classification) and imaging modalities remains unclear. This meta-analysis evaluates the accuracy of AI diagnostics for periodontitis, comparing binary and staging classifications across various imaging modalities.
methodsA systematic meta-analysis reviewed AI-based periodontal diagnostic studies using periapical, panoramic, bitewing, or cone-beam computed tomographic radiographs. Random-effects models calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, F1-score, and area under the curve. Subgroup analyses were performed by imaging modality and heterogeneity (I²).
resultsIn binary classification, periapical imaging showed a sensitivity of 87.2% and a specificity of 81.5%, while panoramic radiographs had an accuracy of 88.2%. In staging classification, panoramic images achieved the highest accuracy (88.9%) and specificity (85.4%), whereas periapical images showed higher sensitivity (76.4%). Diagnostic accuracy varied significantly across imaging modalities, contributing to heterogeneity among studies.
conclusionsThis first meta-analysis comparing binary and staging AI classification emphasizes modality-specific approaches: panoramic imaging is suitable for screening and staging, whereas periapical radiographs support early detection, providing essential insights for clinical AI integration.
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.