ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2026
Automated tooth numbering on panoramic radiographs versus cone-beam computed tomographs: a diagnostic accuracy study of a commercial artificial intelligence system.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 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.
- Accuracy of artificial intelligence-based detection of dental crowding and spacing on cone-beam computed tomography.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of a commercial artificial intelligence system for automated tooth numbering on panoramic radiographs and cone-beam CT (CBCT) and to quantify case-level reliability.
methodsIn this retrospective single-center diagnostic accuracy study, consecutive patients who underwent both panoramic radiography and CBCT in 2024 were included. The index test was automated tooth numbering generated by Diagnocat using the Fédération Dentaire Internationale numbering scheme. The reference standard was modality-specific consensus of 2 experienced, blinded readers. Tooth-position performance metrics with 95% confidence intervals were estimated using patient-level cluster bootstrap. Case-level reliability was defined as the proportion of examinations with completely error-free numbering across all evaluated tooth positions.
resultsThe study analyzed 171 paired panoramic radiographs and CBCT examinations, evaluating 4900 tooth positions per modality (9800 total). Tooth-position performance was identical and high across modalities (per-tooth accuracy 99.29% for both; overall position-based accuracy 98.73% [95% CI 97.97-99.38]). At the case level, 148/171 (86.5%) panoramic radiographs and 155/171 (90.6%) cone-beam computed tomography examinations were error-free.
conclusionsDespite high tooth-position metrics, approximately 1 in 10 to 1 in 7 examinations required at least one manual correction, demonstrating a gap between granular accuracy and case-level reliability. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Reporting case-level, error-free outputs alongside tooth-position metrics provides a more clinically meaningful estimate of reliability for automated tooth numbering and supports safer workflow implementation.
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.