ArticleInternational dental journal2026
Development and Validation of AI System for Tooth Detection and Diagnosis in Dental Radiographs.
Article in International dental journal, 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.
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimsTo develop and validate an AI-automated system for dental charting that accounts for multiple radiograph types and younger patients.
methodsA total of 3705 dental radiographs were collected in Slovakia and Egypt between 2023 and 2024, including orthopantomograms (OPGs) and intraoral radiographs (e.g. bitewings). Complete teeth were manually annotated with bounding boxes and tooth numbers by 2 calibrated annotators. Subsequently, teeth were assessed by at least 3 trained clinicians (10 total, 2-13 years of clinical experience) for the presence of ten dental findings (caries, crown, filling, implant, pontic, periapical lesion, primary tooth, retained root, root canal treatment, unerupted tooth). Assessments were aggregated using the Dawid-Skene model. The AI system comprised 3 deep learning stages for modality classification (OPG or intraoral radiograph; EfficientNetV2), tooth detection per modality (RTMDet), and dental finding classification (EfficientNetV2) and was evaluated with 5-fold cross-validation on 400 held-out radiographs against the clinicians and 3 independent dentists.
resultsTooth detection was highly effective (F1-score: OPG = 0.99, intraoral = 0.98; tooth number accuracy: OPG = 0.98, intraoral = 0.96) with decreased effectiveness for primary teeth. Dental finding classification saw mixed effectiveness (F1-score: 0.52 to 0.99) with a lower effectiveness for disease-related findings. The system was more accurate than the dentists for caries, crowns, fillings, primary teeth, root canal treatments, and unerupted teeth.
conclusionThe AI system outperformed dentists for common findings, but more radiographs and annotations are required to effectively interpret rare conditions. Overall, it can support radiographic diagnosis and speed up dental charting for most patients. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Interpretation of dental radiographs requires clinical experience and remains challenging. An effective AI system was developed for tooth detection and diagnosis in several types of dental radiographs of young and adult patients. Its findings can enhance the clinical workflow, facilitate dentist-patient communication, and improve diagnostic consistency for prevalent findings.
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.