Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41597160›Full record

ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Nevra Karamüftüoğlu, Büşra Yavuz Üçpunar, İrem Birben, Asya Eda Altundağ, Kübra Örnek Mullaoğlu, Cenkhan Bal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nevra KaramüftüoğluDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Gülhane Faculty of Dentistry, Health Sciences University, 06830 Ankara, Türkiye.
Büşra Yavuz ÜçpunarDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Gülhane Faculty of Dentistry, Health Sciences University, 06830 Ankara, Türkiye.
İrem BirbenDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Gülhane Faculty of Dentistry, Health Sciences University, 06830 Ankara, Türkiye.
Asya Eda AltundağDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Gülhane Faculty of Dentistry, Health Sciences University, 06830 Ankara, Türkiye.
Kübra Örnek MullaoğluDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Gülhane Faculty of Dentistry, Health Sciences University, 06830 Ankara, Türkiye.
Cenkhan BalDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Gülhane Faculty of Dentistry, Health Sciences University, 06830 Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-1205-276X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI) has gained substantial prominence in pediatric dentistry, offering new opportunities to enhance diagnostic precision and clinical decision-making. AI-based systems are increasingly applied in caries detection, early childhood caries (ECC) risk prediction, tooth development assessment, mesiodens identification, and other key diagnostic tasks. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize evidence on the diagnostic performance of AI models developed specifically for pediatric dental applications.

methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase following PRISMA-DTA guidelines. Studies evaluating AI-based diagnostic or predictive models in pediatric populations (≤18 years) were included. Reference screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated using random-effects models. Sources of heterogeneity related to imaging modality, annotation strategy, and dataset characteristics were examined.

resultsThirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis, and fifteen were eligible for quantitative analysis. For radiographic caries detection, pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.91, 0.97, and 0.98, respectively. Prediction models demonstrated good diagnostic performance, with pooled sensitivity of 0.86, specificity of 0.82, and AUC of 0.89. Deep learning architectures, particularly convolutional neural networks, consistently outperformed traditional machine learning approaches. Considerable heterogeneity was identified across studies, primarily driven by differences in imaging protocols, dataset balance, and annotation procedures. Beyond quantitative accuracy estimates, this review critically evaluates whether current evidence supports meaningful clinical translation and identifies pediatric domains that remain underrepresented in AI-driven diagnostic innovation.

conclusionsAI technologies exhibit strong potential to improve diagnostic accuracy in pediatric dentistry. However, limited external validation, methodological variability, and the scarcity of prospective real-world studies restrict immediate clinical implementation. Future research should prioritize the development of multicenter pediatric datasets, harmonized annotation workflows, and transparent, explainable AI (XAI) models to support safe and effective clinical translation.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecaries detectiondeep learningdiagnostic accuracymachine learningmeta-analysispediatric dentistryPRISMA-DTAsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41597160
PMCPMC12839933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.