ReviewBrazilian oral research2026
Artificial intelligence for the detection and diagnosis of oral and maxillofacial lesions: evidence, limitations, and future directions.
Review in Brazilian oral research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evidence-based approaches for advancing clinical research and practice: dentistry beyond the myth.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to support or perform specific oral diagnostic tasks, particularly through advances in machine learning and deep learning. This comprehensive review aimed to synthesize current evidence and explore future directions for AI-driven or AI-supported oral diagnostic workflows across four target pathologies: odontogenic cysts, odontogenic tumors, oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs), and oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). A structured search strategy combining MeSH terms and free-text keywords was applied, encompassing target conditions, AI methodologies, diagnostic performance metrics, and clinician comparator groups. Across all pathologies, AI models demonstrated encouraging performance, frequently approaching that of experienced clinicians, particularly in image-based detection and classification tasks. In some contexts, improved sensitivity was observed, suggesting potential value in early disease detection. However, findings were highly variable and often limited by methodological constraints, including retrospective study designs, small or curated datasets, lack of external validation, and heterogeneity in reporting metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve. Importantly, no consistent evidence supports the superiority of AI over clinicians across all performance measures. Instead, current data suggest that AI may serve as a valuable adjunct to clinical decision-making, with potential to reduce diagnostic variability and support non-specialist practitioners. Future research should prioritize prospective, multicenter studies with standardized methodologies, robust external validation, and evaluation of real-world and patient-centered outcomes. While AI holds significant promise, its routine clinical implementation for oral diagnostic tasks remains premature, requiring further validation, transparency, and integration into clinical workflows.
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.