ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
Buccal or palatal? AI-based localization of impacted maxillary canines using panoramic radiographs.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThird-dimensional binary localization, determining whether impacted maxillary canines (IMCs) requiring surgical exposure lie buccally or palatally, is among the key parameters influencing the choice of surgical approach. In 30–50% of cases, the tooth is non-palpable, necessitating further radiographic evaluation. This study investigated whether convolutional neural networks (CNNs) applied to panoramic radiographs (PRs) can accurately classify IMC position, enhancing their diagnostic value in preoperative assessment.
methodsThis retrospective study included 494 IMCs from 472 PRs. Surgical notes and CBCT findings served as reference standards. IMCs were annotated on PRs and classified using CNN architectures across multiple preprocessing pipelines. Deep feature embeddings were further evaluated using logistic regression (LR), support vector machines (SVM), and k-nearest neighbors (KNN). Model performance was assessed using accuracy, macro-averaged precision, recall, F1-score, and ROC-AUC.
resultsThe ResNet50 + LR model yielded the highest performance (accuracy: 0.898, F1-score: 0.897, ROC-AUC: 0.945), outperforming InceptionV3 and all softmax-based models. Preprocessing had minimal effect on ResNet50 but improved InceptionV3 outcomes. Most misclassifications occurred in buccal cases. Feature-space analysis revealed favorable linear separability for LR.
conclusionsCNN-based analysis of PRs enables accurate IMC localization, with ResNet50 + LR demonstrating consistent performance. These findings support the potential of AI-assisted PR interpretation as a viable step toward enhancing clinical utility of two-dimensional imaging.
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.