ArticleBMC oral health2026
Teeth identification and numbering in mixed dentition: evaluating deep learning models for pediatric panoramic radiographs.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of state-of-the-art deep learning-based object detection and segmentation architectures —YOLOv8, YOLOv11, Mask R-CNN and DeepLabV3—for automated tooth detection and numbering in children aged 6 to 12 years on panoramic radiographs.
methodsA total of 1,378 anonymized panoramic images were retrospectively obtained and annotated using the FDI numbering system with polygon labeling. The dataset was stratified into age groups (6–12 years) to assess age-specific performance. All tested models (YOLOv8, YOLOv11, Mask R-CNN and DeepLabV3) were trained and evaluated in two scenarios: (1) overall detection performance without age separation and (2) age-based analysis. Evaluation metrics included Precision, Recall, F1 Score, mAP50, and mAP50-95.
resultsIn Scenario 1, YOLOv11 achieved higher scores across all metrics compared to YOLOv8, including Precision (0.8435), Recall (0.8755), F1 Score (0.8592), mAP50 (0.8715), and mAP50-95 (0.5613). Scenario 2 revealed performance variations across age groups, with YOLOv11 consistently outperforming YOLOv8. The highest performance was recorded at age 12 with YOLOv11, achieving 0.9657 F1 Score and 0.9817 mAP50, indicating enhanced accuracy in older children with more stable dentition.
conclusionYOLOv11 demonstrated superior capability in detecting and numbering teeth on pediatric panoramic radiographs, particularly in older age groups. These findings support the potential of advanced YOLO-based models as promising decision-support tools for tasks such as standardized charting and tooth identification during the mixed dentition period.
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.