ArticleScientific reports2026
Deep learning-based assessment of periapical radiographic image quality.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The manual assessment of periapical radiographs (PAs) for image quality is inherently subjective, labor-intensive, and time-consuming. This leads to diagnostic uncertainty, unnecessary patient radiation from retakes, and a lack of systematic quality improvement. To address this, we developed an automated deep learning system for comprehensive PAs quality assessment. A retrospective dataset of 3594 PAs was utilized. Expert annotators labeled each image for ten clinically relevant tooth-position classes and six common quality defects: vertical angle, horizontal angle, crown coverage, apical coverage, cone cut, and scratch. We trained seven independent ResNet50 models-one for multi-class tooth position classification and six for binary defect detection. To enhance robustness and mitigate class imbalance, extensive data augmentation and oversampling strategies were implemented during training. Model performance was comprehensively evaluated using standard metrics, including the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and loss value. The models demonstrated excellent performance, achieving AUC values of 0.997 for tooth position, and 0.996 (poor vertical angle), 1.000 (poor horizontal angle), 1.000 (incomplete crown coverage), 0.994 (incomplete apical coverage), 0.999 (cone cut), and 0.924 (scratch) for the various quality defects. These results indicate that the ResNet50 algorithm provides an effective and highly accurate approach for the automated detection of image quality issues in PAs. This AI tool holds significant potential for clinical translation, its integration into digital dental imaging systems could offer real-time, objective feedback, thereby improving diagnostic accuracy, reducing retake rates to minimize patient radiation exposure, and enhancing overall workflow efficiency in dental clinics. Validation on independent, multi-center datasets is required before clinical deployment.
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.