ArticleScientific reports2025
Deep learning-based object detection of restorative dental instruments with potential implications for workflow automation and infection control in dental supply units.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study presents a proof-of-concept deep learning approach for automated detection and classification of restorative dental instruments on standardized trays, aiming to support workflow automation and infection control in dental supply units. A dataset comprising 1,000 images and 14,000 annotated instances of restorative dental instruments across 14 categories was developed. The YOLOv8 model was trained and evaluated on this dataset using standard object detection metrics, including precision, recall, and mean average precision at IoU thresholds 0.5 (mAP@0.5) and 0.5:0.95 (mAP@[0.5:0.95]). To assess model advancement, YOLOv8 performance was compared against its predecessors, YOLOv5, YOLOv6, and YOLOv7, under identical experimental settings. A session-level data split was implemented as the primary evaluation to minimize data leakage and provide a realistic estimate of generalization across unseen tray configurations. The YOLOv8 model achieved highest mean average precision mAP@0.5 of 95.9% and mAP@[0.5:0.95] of 80.9%, demonstrating robust detection capability under both standard and stringent evaluation thresholds. Across instrument categories, YOLOv8 demonstrated precision ranging from 90.3% to 100% and recall from 80.6 to 98.5%. The findings demonstrate the feasibility of using YOLOv8 for automated restorative dental instrument detection as an early-stage tool for improving supply unit efficiency. While results indicate high detection accuracy and robustness, further validation in diverse clinical environments is needed. Future deployment should incorporate human-in-the-loop verification, audit trails, and error escalation mechanisms to ensure safe and accountable AI-assisted workflows.
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.