SynthesisFrontiers in medical technology2026
Economic evaluation of AI-based oral disease screening: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medical technology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) has made a significant contribution to dentistry, particularly in improving screening and diagnostic accuracy. This systematic review assessed the cost-effectiveness and broader economic implications of incorporating AI into oral disease screening. Methods: We included studies that conducted economic analyses and/or cost-effectiveness evaluations of AI-driven tools compared with conventional techniques for detecting oral diseases. We searched Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy combined terms related to economic evaluation, artificial intelligence, and oral diseases. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024548039). Articles published up to January 12, 2025, were included. Results: Of 334 records identified, four studies met the inclusion criteria - all these studies dealt with dental economic evaluations, and were conducted in the German dental care settings. All four evaluated AI-assisted detection of dental or proximal caries on bitewing radiographs. Across studies, AI generally improved diagnostic performance, particularly sensitivity. In one modelling study, a U-Net-based system achieved higher accuracy than dentists (0.80 vs. 0.71). Three model-based economic evaluations reported lower costs and greater tooth-retention outcomes with AI than with conventional assessment. Costs ranged from €298 to €378 for AI and from €322 to €419 for conventional care. Tooth retention ranged from 62.4 to 64.0 years with AI and from 60.4 to 62.0 years with conventional care. In contrast, the randomized trial found that AI-supported assessment increased sensitivity but was associated with more invasive treatment decisions. This resulted in similar costs (€330 vs. €330) and identical mean tooth retention (49 years) compared with standard assessment. Overall, the evidence suggests a potential economic benefit of AI in caries detection, but uncertainty remains under real-world treatment conditions. Conclusions: AI-assisted screening may offer economic value in dental caries detection, particularly when improved lesion detection is linked to appropriate downstream management. These findings are relevant for clinicians, payers, and health-system decision-makers considering the integration of AI into diagnostic pathways. Future multicentre, real-world economic evaluations are needed to guide reimbursement, implementation, and equitable adoption across diverse settings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024548039, PROSPERO: CRD42024548039.
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.