ArticleBMC oral health2026
Deep learning versus general dentists: a clinical evaluation of caries diagnostic accuracy on bitewing radiographs.
Article in BMC 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnostic accuracy of caries detection on bitewing radiographs varies among dentists and is strongly influenced by lesion severity. Improving the detection of initial and extensive carious lesions remains clinically important for appropriate treatment planning. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of a deep learning-based detection model and compared its performance with that of general dentists in detecting caries on bitewing radiographs of primary teeth, applying lesion severity criteria relevant to clinical caries management.
methodsA total of 1,427 bitewing radiographs was included, with 1,180 allocated for training and validation, and 247 for testing. As the reference dataset, two experienced dentists annotated carious lesions according to six depth categories based on the International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMS™). The diagnostic performance of YOLOv8 and the general dentists were compared using recall, precision, F1-score, average precision (AP), and mean average precision (mAP) at an intersection over union (IoU) threshold of 50%.
resultsYOLOv8 outperformed the general dentists in recall (0.51 vs. 0.29), precision (0.41 vs. 0.31), F1-score (0.44 vs. 0.29), and mAP (0.41 vs. 0.22). Both YOLOv8 and the general dentists demonstrated greater diagnostic accuracy for extensive carious lesions than for initial lesions. Based on the pattern of mispredictions, YOLOv8 tended to underestimate lesion severity, predicting shallower depths than those annotated in the reference dataset, whereas the general dentists exhibited a tendency to overestimate lesion depth.
conclusionThe deep learning-based model demonstrated superior performance to the general dentists across all evaluated metrics and lesion classes. These findings support the potential role of deep learning as an adjunctive tool for radiographic caries assessment on bitewing radiographs of primary teeth.
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.