ReviewFrontiers in oral health2026
Artificial intelligence applications in automated dental report generation - a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in oral health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models and natural language processing (NLP), has enabled the structured synthesis and summarisation of complex clinical data. In healthcare, AI-driven report generation has the potential to improve efficiency, reduce clinician workload, and enhance communication with patients and healthcare professionals. This scoping review aimed to map current developments in AI applications for dental report generation and to identify existing research gaps. Materials and methods: A systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE via Ovid, and IEEE Xplore was conducted for studies published between January 2015 and March 2026. Eligible studies described development, evaluation, or application of AI systems for generating dental reports from imaging, textual, or voice inputs. Extracted data on AI models, input modality, language, and evaluation methods were summarised descriptively. Results: 1,265 records were identified, of which seven studies met inclusion criteria. Six focused on radiology report generation from panoramic radiographs, and one generated clinical examination reports from voice-transcribed charting. NLP-based models, including GPT variants and fine-tuned large language models, were used to generate final reports. Performance was evaluated using metrics including ROUGE, BLEU, BERTScore, hallucination analysis, structural validity, response latency, output length, readability indices, clinician ratings, and patient questionnaires. AI-generated reports demonstrated high accuracy for common findings and readability comparable to human-authored reports. Simplified AI-adapted versions improved patient-rated clarity. However, heterogeneity in report types, datasets, languages, and evaluation metrics limited direct comparison. Conclusion: AI systems show promising capability in generating dental reports from diverse inputs and customisation for professional or non-professional audience. Standardised evaluation frameworks, larger multilingual datasets, and assessment of patient comprehension are needed before routine clinical 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.