ArticleOdontology2026
Deep Learning-Based Automated Diagnostic Charting on Panoramic Radiography: Comparison of YOLOv11 and YOLOv12.
Article in Odontology, 2026. 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.
- From Algorithmic Performance to Clinical Translation: Translational Readiness of Imaging-Based Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry-A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
Automated diagnostic charting on panoramic radiographs is essential for optimizing clinical workflows and reducing diagnostic variability. This study aims to perform a comparative performance analysis of two next-generation deep learning architectures, YOLOv11 and YOLOv12, for the automated detection of 13 different dental conditions. A hybrid dataset consisting of 2,297 panoramic radiographs was compiled, comprising 1,579 images from a single institution and 718 external images from Roboflow Universe to test generalization. The models were trained to detect conditions including caries, implants, bone loss, and impactions using a standardized training protocol. Performance was evaluated using mean Average Precision (mAP@0.5), Precision, Recall, and F1-score on both internal and external test sets. YOLOv11 demonstrated superior performance compared to YOLOv12, achieving a mAP@0.5 of 0.857 on the internal test set. Furthermore, YOLOv11 exhibited robust generalization capabilities, maintaining a mAP@0.5 of 0.806 on the unseen external dataset. While detection rates were high for well-defined objects like crowns and implants, performance was lower for subtle pathologies such as bone loss and caries. The findings identify YOLOv11 as the more robust and reliable architecture for multi-class dental object detection compared to the newer YOLOv12. The proposed model holds significant potential as a clinical decision support tool, serving as a reliable "second opinion" to enhance diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in daily practice.
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.