ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Development and external validation of an AI pipeline for automated estimation of a radiographic DMFT (rDMFT) score from panoramic radiographs: a feasibility study.
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 assess the feasibility of estimating a radiographic Decayed-Missing-Filled-Teeth score (rDMFT), a proxy for the clinical DMFT index, from a single panoramic radiograph with a position-aware deep-learning pipeline. MATERIALS AND
methodsA tooth-status detector and a tooth-numbering detector (32 FDI positions), trained on DENTEX 2023, were combined in a position-aware read-out (one tooth per FDI position, third molars excluded, missing teeth = 28 - occupied positions) and validated on 100 panoramic radiographs from an independent hospital against a two-dentist, radiograph-based reference (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC; mean absolute error, MAE; Bland-Altman analysis).
resultsAgainst the reference, the pipeline reached an ICC of 0.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90) and an MAE of 2.38, below the between-dentist agreement in point estimate (ICC 0.88, MAE 2.13), with larger errors against each dentist alone (MAE 3.00 and 2.73) and a bias of + 1.14 units from caries over-detection; agreement was highest for filled (r 0.90) and lowest for decayed teeth (r 0.34; dentists 0.16). In the 26 radiographs with missing teeth the missing count was exact in 42% (62% within ± 1 tooth), and missing teeth were over-called in 15 of 74 complete dentitions; tooth loss was no longer overlooked (26 of 26 detected), but the overall ICC was 0.84 versus 0.90 without numbering.
conclusionsAutomated rDMFT estimation is feasible, but agreement was lower in point estimate than between two dentists, with larger errors against each dentist. The missing component now responds to actual tooth loss but remains imprecise and is over-called in some complete dentitions; the decayed component is unreliable. The pipeline is a research building block, not a decision-support or triage tool. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: rDMFT is a radiographic proxy, not a clinical measure, and the pipeline is not proposed for clinical use; any application would first require validation in unselected cohorts against clinically determined reference standards.
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.