ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2026
Emerging Artificial Intelligence Technologies for Evaluation of Dental Composite Restorations: A Scoping Review.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly applied in restorative dentistry, but its role in assessing dental composite restorations is not yet well established. This scoping review evaluated how AI has been used to assess mechanical, esthetic, and diagnostic aspects of composite restorations. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from 2020 to July 30, 2025, identified studies that applied AI to assess dental composite restorations. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and all but one had a low to moderate risk of bias. Reported AI applications included tooth shade matching, evaluating mechanical properties, classifying restoration types from images and radiographs, predicting clinical performance, assessing cure depth and microtensile bond strength to estimate debonding risk, and identifying factors associated with marginal microleakage. The highest reported predictive accuracies were achieved by an artificial neural network predicting abrasive wear (99.7% accuracy), adaptive boosting and multilayer Perceptron models predicting flexural strength and Vickers hardness (up to 99.0 and 98.9% accuracy, respectively), and extreme gradient boosting predicting mechanical properties (98.8-99.6% accuracy), each on task- and dataset-specific internal validation. Overall, current AI models show promise for supporting composite restoration evaluation but remain at an early, proof-of-concept stage. The use of small, often single-center samples and the absence of external validation suggest that their performance metrics may be overly optimistic and not yet ready for clinical application. Larger, multi-center datasets, transparent reporting, external validation, and formal assessments of clinical utility are needed before these tools can be considered for routine clinical application.
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.