Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42270756›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Comparative performance of one-stage and two-stage deep learning models for instance segmentation of overhanging dental restorations on bitewing radiographs.

Ömer Hatipoğlu, Özge Başar, Güldane Mağat, Ali Altındağ, Fatma Pertek Hatipoğlu

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ömer HatipoğluDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize, Turkey. omerhtp@gmail.com.
Özge BaşarDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Adnan Menderes University, Aydın, Turkey.
Güldane MağatDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey.
Ali AltındağDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey.
Fatma Pertek HatipoğluDepartment of Endodontics, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate detection of overhanging dental restorations on bitewing radiographs is clinically important but remains challenging due to subtle marginal discrepancies. This study aimed to develop and compare deep learning-based instance segmentation models for the automated detection and classification of overhanging restorations, with a specific focus on the relative performances of one-stage and two-stage architectures. A total of 1236 anonymized bitewing radiographs were retrospectively collected and manually annotated using polygon-based segmentation by specialist dentists. The restorations were classified as ideal or overhanging based on established radiographic criteria. One-stage YOLO11-based segmentation models (YOLO11n-, YOLO11s-, and YOLO11m-seg) were compared with two-stage architectures implemented in Detectron2, including the Mask R-CNN, Cascade Mask R-CNN, and PointRend. All models were trained and evaluated using identical train-validation-test splits. Performance was assessed on an independent test set using COCO-style instance segmentation metrics (AP50-95, AP50, AP75, and AR@100), reported both overall and for the clinically relevant overhang class. Uncertainty was quantified using non-parametric bootstrap resampling (B = 200) to derive the 95% confidence intervals. All models achieved high AP50 values, indicating effective coarse localization of the restorations. However, two-stage architectures showed consistently higher AP-based point estimates than the one-stage YOLO-based models at stricter overlap thresholds. Cascade Mask R-CNN achieved the highest overall performance (AP50-95 = 0.703), while PointRend yielded the highest overhang-specific AP-based segmentation performance (Overhang AP50-95 = 0.743). YOLO-based models demonstrated lower AP50-95 values despite relatively strong AP50 performance, reflecting a reduced boundary precision. Increasing the YOLO model capacity did not improve performance. Two-stage instance segmentation models, particularly those incorporating boundary-aware refinement, showed higher AP-based performance than one-stage approaches for detecting overhanging dental restorations on bitewing radiographs in this dataset. These findings highlight the importance of architectural design over model scale alone and suggest that two-stage frameworks may offer advantages for precise evaluation of restoration margins in a controlled experimental setting. However, external validation across centers and imaging systems is required before their suitability for routine clinical decision support applications can be established.

Indexed as

Deep LearningDental Restoration, PermanentImage Processing, Computer-AssistedDetection AlgorithmsHumansArtificial intelligenceBitewing radiographyDeep learningDental restorationsInstance segmentationOverhanging restorations

Identifiers

PMID42270756
PMCPMC13503764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.