ArticleImaging science in dentistry2025
Efficacy of deep learning models and dental professionals in identifying dental implants.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Purpose: Implant identification is a pressing concern in dental implantology, and artificial intelligence (AI) has been evaluated for this purpose. YOLO, a state-of-the-art object detection model, is suitable for medical imaging; therefore, this study assessed YOLOv11-the latest iteration-for identifying 10 implant types in Indian clinical settings and compared its accuracy to that of dental professionals. Materials and Methods: A dataset of 3,161 radiographs, comprising both periapical and panoramic images of 10 implant types, was annotated and used to train and test YOLOv11. Training was performed on Google Colab using an NVIDIA Tesla T4 GPU (16 GB VRAM). A random sample of 200 radiographs was selected from the test dataset and presented to 50 dental practitioners for implant identification. Their responses were analysed and compared, using the chi-square test for statistical significance. Results: YOLOv11 achieved precision of 0.87, recall of 0.85, an F1-score of 0.86, and an mAP50 of 0.899. The model achieved excellent classification accuracy for Adin (95%), MIS (94%), Bego (92%), ITI (96%), and Bicon (97%). Moderate accuracy was noted for Noris (82%), Osstem (85%), AlphaBio (88%), Dentium (77%), and Bioline (75%). YOLOv11 demonstrated higher overall accuracy and consistency than dental professionals. Dentists' accuracy ranged from 27% to 49%, whereas that of YOLOv11 ranged from 92% to 100%. Conclusion: YOLOv11 recognised most implant classes with over 90% accuracy, surpassing traditional manual techniques in implant detection. Although the model is dependable and efficient, certain aspects require improvement. The study also emphasises the significance of a region-specific approach for clinical relevance.
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.