ArticleScientific reports2026
Radiographic assessment of post-endodontic filling features on PAN and CBCT: diagnostic agreement of an AI platform against CBCT consensus.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective diagnostic accuracy study evaluated the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) platform (Diagnocat) in assessing endodontic treatment features via panoramic (PAN) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images from 163 patients. Two experienced observers (a radiologist and a dentist) provided consensus readings on the CBCT images, which served as the reference standard. Because the platform applies modality-specific processing pipelines, analyses were conducted and reported separately for CBCT and PAN. The AI analyzed five treatment variables-adequate obturation, adequate density, overfilling, voids in filling, and short filling-and its performance was compared against the reference standard for both the PAN and the CBCT. Diagnostic accuracy, precision, recall (sensitivity), and F1-scores were calculated. Diagnocat exhibited excellent diagnostic performance on CBCT images, achieving overall accuracy above 94% and perfect (100%) sensitivity for overfilling. On PAN benchmarked against the CBCT reference, performance was lower (accuracies 68.25-84.66%), with limited precision and F1-scores for adequate obturation and adequate density, while sensitivity remained comparatively high for voids and short fillings. These results demonstrate modality-dependent platform performance under the studied acquisition protocols and reference standard.
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.