ArticleBMC oral health2026
Accuracy of artificial intelligence-based detection of dental crowding and spacing on cone-beam computed tomography.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI) system for detecting anterior dental crowding and spacing on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to characterise clinically relevant patterns of diagnostic failure.
methodsIn this retrospective diagnostic accuracy study, CBCT scans from 88 patients were analysed. AI-generated diagnoses at the tooth-pair level were compared with a reference standard based on a modified Little's Irregularity Index (mLII) that incorporates signed contact-point displacement. Diagnostic performance - sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and Cohen's κ - was assessed at the tooth-pair level (n = 875) across five thresholds (± 0.5 to ± 2.5 mm). Arch-level performance was assessed using the conventional Little's Irregularity Index (LII). Statistical significance was set at α = 0.05, and all estimates are reported with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsAt the tooth-pair level, sensitivity for crowding ranged from 28.8% to 42.0%, whereas specificity remained high (81.9-88.9%). Agreement with the reference standard was fair (maximum κ = 0.247). A consistent blind spot was identified at the maxillary central-incisor pair (11-21), where no crowded cases were detected despite confirmed irregularities. Spacing detection was poor (sensitivity 10-25%). At the arch level, detection improved with increasing severity of irregularity (38.8-75.0%) but remained incomplete and was accompanied by a high false-positive rate (41.2% in perfectly aligned arches).
conclusionsThe AI system showed limited sensitivity and only fair agreement for detecting anterior crowding and spacing on CBCT. Clinically relevant irregularities, including those at the anterior midline, may be missed. Because crowding and spacing are most reliably assessed from clinical examination and intraoral records rather than from CBCT, AI-based CBCT assessments should be interpreted with caution and cannot replace clinician evaluation.
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.