ArticleInternational dental journal2026
Multicentre Evaluation of AI-Assisted Caries Detection on Panoramic Radiographs Among Early-Career Dentists.
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
INTRODUCTION AND
aimsArtificial intelligence - assisted diagnostic tools are increasingly introduced into dental practice, yet their impact on clinician performance in routine panoramic radiograph interpretation remains incompletely defined. This multicentre reader study evaluated whether AI assistance improves diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, and inter-reader consistency in caries detection, particularly among early-career dentists.
methodsTwelve early-career dentists (≤3 years' experience) and three senior dentists (>10 years' experience) independently interpreted 402 anonymized panoramic radiographs under four conditions: unassisted reading, AI-assisted reading, AI-only analysis, and expert reference. Diagnostic performance was compared with a standardized expert-derived reference standard established by three experienced dentists using pixel-level annotations. Sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, interpretation time, and inter-reader agreement were analysed.
resultsAI assistance increased tooth-level sensitivity (82.4% vs 67.4%, P < .001) without compromising specificity (97.4% vs 97.2%), and reduced mean interpretation time (50.37 vs 65.12 seconds, P = .003). Case-level sensitivity improved from 84.7% to 93.3% (P < .001). Inter-reader agreement increased from κ = 0.61 to 0.73. The standalone AI system achieved a sensitivity of 79.2% (95% CI, 76.0-82.4) and specificity of 98.4% (95% CI, 76.0-82.4), and AUC of 0.938 (95% CI, 0.934-0.941).
conclusionAI assistance improved diagnostic sensitivity, efficiency, and consistency among early-career dentists interpreting panoramic radiographs for caries detection, without increasing false-positive rates. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: AI-supported interpretation may help reduce experience-related variability in panoramic radiograph assessment and improve diagnostic efficiency in routine dental practice, particularly in settings with limited access to senior supervision.
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.