Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42845532›Full record

ReviewImaging science in dentistry2026

Transformer and generative models in dental and maxillofacial imaging: Narrative review of clinical evidence and future directions.

Jae Joon Hwang, Na-Yeon Kim, Yun-Hoa Jung, Bong-Hae Cho, Min-Suk Heo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Imaging science in dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jae Joon HwangDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0379-8460
Na-Yeon KimDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6941-8677
Yun-Hoa JungDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4431-6763
Bong-Hae ChoDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8292-6119
Min-Suk HeoDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3406-0645

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This narrative review examined whether primary dental and maxillofacial imaging studies support, qualify, or counter the conclusions of previous systematic reviews of transformer and generative models, with findings assessed by topic rather than by review. Materials and Methods: Structured PubMed searches covering 2019-2026 retained 159 records, and supplementary searches addressed topic-specific gaps. Dental and maxillofacial evidence was distinguished from medical transfer evidence. Thirty-six comparisons were then assessed for external validation, patient separation, comparator fairness, and clinical endpoints. Results: In task-level architecture comparisons, previous reviews reported frequent first-place rankings for transformer models but limited external validation. Primary studies qualified that pattern: convolutional neural networks won the largest matched segmentation comparison, Swin-Unet rankings reversed across datasets, convolutional models led two direct cone-beam computed tomography comparisons, and one transformer retained high performance in external surface segmentation. Of 36 comparisons, 4 used independent external validation, 15 had a fair same-data comparator, and 15 included a diagnostic, reader, or clinical endpoint. Generative reviews reported image-quality gains, but heterogeneity exceeded 99% in a cone-beam computed tomography meta-analysis, and most dental metal-artifact studies had a high risk of bias. Crack visibility improved ex vivo; low-dose cone-beam computed tomography improved structure visibility without significantly changing treatment or referral decisions. Conclusion: Primary evidence supports complementarity between convolutional neural networks and transformers and suggests early clinical translation, but it does not support architecture-wide transformer superiority. The directly observed gaps were matched comparisons, independent external testing, use-specific endpoints, and measurement of anatomy removed or introduced by pixel-modifying models.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyDeep LearningDentistryTransformer

Identifiers

PMID42845532
PMCPMC13641963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.