ReviewCureus2025
Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence in Endodontic Diagnosis and Treatment Evaluation: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in endodontic decision-making: hallucinations and emerging challenges for clinical practice.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Large language models and generative artificial intelligence in endodontics: a scoping review.Odontology · 2026Review
- Article
- Comprehensive management of endo-perio lesions using laser curettage, crown rehabilitation and orthodontic therapy: An AI-assisted CBCT radiographic evaluation.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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative tool in endodontics, offering potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy, treatment evaluation, and clinical decision-making. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of AI models in diagnosing endodontic conditions and evaluating treatment outcomes compared with human clinicians. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to June 2025. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing diverse AI models such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), U-Net architectures, YOLOv5, and ChatGPT-4. These were applied to tasks including periapical lesion detection, root canal filling evaluation, fractured instrument identification, and caries diagnosis. Across studies, AI systems achieved diagnostic accuracy ranging from 75% to 99%, with sensitivity and specificity frequently exceeding 80%. DenseNet201 achieved the highest performance for fractured instrument detection (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.900; Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) = 0.810), while ChatGPT-4 demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy (99%) compared with dental students (77-80%). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based models consistently outperformed those using panoramic or periapical images. Despite high accuracy, variability in methodologies, dataset sizes, and outcome metrics limited quantitative synthesis; therefore, a meta-analysis was not feasible. Overall, AI demonstrated comparable or superior performance to clinicians, offering advantages in speed, reproducibility, and objectivity. However, limitations such as dataset heterogeneity, lack of external validation, and challenges in detecting subtle features underscore the need for further large-scale, multicenter studies. AI integration into routine endodontic practice shows strong potential but requires continued refinement and validation for reliable clinical adoption.
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.