ArticleScientific reports2025
Detection accuracy of an AI platform for dental treatment features on panoramic radiographs - tooth- and patient-level analyses.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence in periapical radiography: a systematic review.Odontology · 2026Pooled it
- Tooth Detection and Numbering Performance of Two AI-Based Systems on Panoramic Radiographs: A Comparative Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Review
- Artificial intelligence for teaching, training, and assessment in dental education: a domain-based scoping review.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise in dental imaging, yet its reliability for comprehensive diagnostic charting from panoramic radiographs (PAN) remains uncertain. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of a commercial AI platform (Diagnocat™, San Francisco, USA) in detecting common dental treatment features on PAN images. In this retrospective study, 147 patients (4,148 teeth) were analyzed against the consensus of two experienced readers. Tooth-level performance was assessed for missing teeth, fillings, crowns, pontics, endodontic treatments, orthodontic appliances, and implants, using patient-clustered nonparametric bootstrapping used to account for within-patient correlations. At the tooth level, the AI achieved high diagnostic accuracy across features (94.9-99.9%), with nearly perfect results for missing teeth, crowns, pontics, and implants. However, under a stringent patient-level "perfect match" criterion requiring error-free full-mouth reports, the AI succeeded in only 56.5% of cases (95% CI, 48.4-64.2%). Errors were most often related to fillings (57.3%) and endodontic treatments (19.5%). These findings highlight a critical gap between high per-tooth accuracy and clinically meaningful patient-level performance. These findings underscore that while the AI performs strongly at the tooth level, its patient-level performance is insufficient for autonomous diagnostic charting.
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.