ArticleScience progress
Deep learning-based segmentation of caries, implants, fixed prosthesis, and restorations on bitewing radiographs: A retrospective study.
Article in Science progress. 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.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence for Dental Caries Detection Across Clinical Imaging Modalities: A Systematic Review and Descriptive Synthesis.Diagnostics (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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveThe present retrospective diagnostic accuracy study aimed to evaluate the performance of an AI-based system for automated detection of teeth, caries, implants, restorations, and fixed prostheses on bitewing radiographs.MethodsA total of 407 bitewing radiographs from 315 adult patients were analyzed using an AI system developed by VELMENI Inc. and compared with reference annotations on individual tooth-level provided by two oral and maxillofacial radiologists. Every tooth was encoded for the absence (0) or presence (1) of radiographic findings: caries, restorations, fixed prosthesis, and implants. Cohen's kappa (κ) with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals was used for assessment of inter-rater reliability. The AI system's diagnostic accuracy was evaluated for sensitivity and specificity using human consensus reference standards.ResultsThe annotated dataset consisted of 2,829 tooth-level observations. The two radiologists showed substantial to near-perfect agreement for prosthesis (κ = 0.925) and restorations (κ = 0.872) detection, moderate for caries detection (κ = 0.804), and lowest for implants detection (κ = 0.726). The AI system showed substantial agreement with the human observers for restorations (κ = 0.812-0.871) and prosthesis detection (κ = 0.882-0.940), moderate for caries (κ = 0.454-0.508), and the highest agreement for implant detection (κ = 0.763-0.974). Post-filtration for human consensus, the AI system showed high sensitivity for implant (1.000), prosthesis (0.984), restorations (0.974), and caries (0.972). The AI system showed high specificity for implant (1.000) and prosthesis (0.984), and restorations (0.936) detection, but slightly lower specificity for caries detection (0.842).ConclusionsThe AI system demonstrated diagnostic performance comparable to that of oral and maxillofacial radiologists for detecting multiple dental findings on bitewing radiographs, including restorations, prosthesis, and implants, and slightly lower for caries detection. These findings support the potential role of the AI system as a clinical adjunct to improve efficiency and consistency in routine dental imaging interpretation.
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.