ReviewImaging science in dentistry2026
Transformer and generative models in dental and maxillofacial imaging: Narrative review of clinical evidence and future directions.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.