ArticleInternational dental journal2026
Clinical Readiness of Artificial Intelligence Models for MB2 Canal Detection in Maxillary Molars: A Scoping Review.
Article in International dental journal, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe second mesiobuccal (MB2) canal detection in maxillary molars represents a notable challenge in endodontics. This scoping review (SR) attempts to map the existing research on artificial intelligence (AI)-based models in MB2 detection, delineating the current stage of clinical readiness and gaps associated with routine clinical implementation.
methodsA comprehensive, independent search was conducted in three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) to synthesize evidence from inception to 20 February 2026, adhering to PRISMA 2020 guidelines and PRISMA-Scr checklist. Study designs, including observational, diagnostic accuracy, as well as experimental designs investigating human permanent maxillary molars employing AI approaches, including machine learning or deep learning models, were included.
resultsFrom 1218 identified records, 5 studies met inclusion criteria. All 5 studies reported strong diagnostic performance of AI models in detecting MB2 canals with favourable diagnostic performance in both deep learning and machine learning models. The clinical readiness assessment using the Technology Readiness Level - Implementation Science framework reported progression of all 5 studies to level 4. Overall risk of bias (RoB) assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool reflected some concerns, highlighting unclear or insufficient methodological components and low overall applicability concerns. RoB assessment was visualized via the ROBVIS tool.
conclusionsOverall, AI models demonstrate favourable diagnostic performance for MB2 canal identification; however, current evidence highlights important limitations in their translational readiness. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: AI-based tools show near-expert accuracy for MB2 detection on cone beam computed tomography, but all current models remain at the prototype stage without real-world validation. They should be used as decision-support adjuncts, not standalone diagnostic systems.
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.