ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Agreement between artificial intelligence and periodontists in the detection of periodontal bone loss on panoramic radiographs.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
objectivesTo evaluate the agreement between radiographic bone level measurements generated by a deep learning model and those derived from expert periodontist annotations on panoramic radiographs. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective single-center radiographic study, periodontal bone loss was segmented by a YOLOv8x-based deep learning model and independently manually segmented by four periodontists. The artificial intelligence (AI)- and periodontist-generated segmentations were converted into point clouds for radiographic bone level measurements, and the overall agreement and that for six tooth regions was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, with additional error and association metrics calculated.
resultsAcross 2,037 teeth, the mean absolute error (MAE) between the AI-derived and periodontist consensus measurements was 5.08% points of root length. The measurements revealed a strong association (Pearson's r = 0.80, Spearman's ρ = 0.80). Agreement was highest in the upper anterior region (MAE = 4.42; R² = 0.75; r = 0.90) and lowest in the lower molar region (MAE = 7.66; R² = 0.26; r = 0.65). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean bias of 1.61% points, with wide limits of agreement across all regions.
conclusionAI-derived measurements were strongly associated periodontist consensus measurements, with only a small systematic difference. However, the limits of agreement, particularly in the molar regions, were too wide to support the use of AI-derived measurements for individual tooth-level assessment without clinician oversight. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The evaluated deep learning system may facilitate radiographic bone level assessment on panoramic radiographs but currently requires clinician oversight, especially in the molar regions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42720798What 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.