ArticleBMC oral health2026
A web-based deep learning cascade for automated detection and quantification of marginal bone loss.
Article in BMC oral health, 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 Panoramic Radiographs to AI-Assisted Radiographic Periodontal Charting: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Dentistry journal · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMarginal Bone Loss (MBL) around dental implants is a key indicator of peri-implantitis. Existing literature evaluates MBL at a single time point, neglecting baseline comparisons and the temporal nature of disease progression. Conventional radiographic assessments remain limited by subjectivity in angulation and magnification. This study aimed to develop and validate a cascade of six Deep Learning (DL) models for automated detection and quantification of MBL on sequential Periapical (PA) radiographs. It further assessed the system’s accuracy against dental specialists and deployed it as a web-based tool.
methodsA total of 6,453 PAs of dental implants were collected from institutional centers and an open-access dataset. After applying exclusion criteria, 2,960 PAs remained. Sample size calculation was not applicable due to the multi-model architecture; therefore, each model was trained iteratively until convergence was achieved using these PAs. This Artificial Intelligence (AI)-cascade was designed to perform: rotation correction, implant alignment, Region of Interest (ROI) detection, implant classification, mesial-distal detection, and MBL estimation. Each model was assessed using performance metrics appropriate for its specific task. Thereafter, MBL was estimated on forty pairs of PAs by periodontists and AI-cascade; these were compared against a Reference Standard (RS) established by dental specialists. Agreement between AI-derived and RS measurements was evaluated using the Mann–Whitney U test (p < 0.05).
resultsRotation correction model achieved 98.0% accuracy and an F1 score of 99.0%. Implant alignment model demonstrated a Mean Absolute Error of 3.02 degrees. ROI detection model achieved a mean Average Precision (mAP) of 99.4%, with 98.3% precision and 98.2% recall. Implant classification model achieved a mAP of 93.9%, with 100% precision and 98.0% recall. Mesial-distal detection model achieved 78.0% accuracy and an F1 score of 78.0%. Finally, the MBL estimation model attained a mAP of 75.0%, with 73.0% precision and 69.8% recall. No significant differences were found in MBL severity scores between the RS and AI-cascade (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe AI-cascade demonstrated reliable performance in detecting and quantifying MBL across sequential PAs, comparable to expert evaluation. Its deployment as a web-based application enables objective peri-implant monitoring, representing a significant advancement in clinical translation of AI for implant diagnostics.
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.