ReviewFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Accuracy of artificial intelligence applications in periodontics: a thematic narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in dental medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Faculty development and institutional readiness for incorporating AI in health professions education- A narrative review.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly applied to periodontal diagnostics across periapical, bitewing, panoramic radiographs, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and intraoral photographs. Recent multicenter, external validation, and explainability-focused studies have advanced the field, yet variability in datasets, anatomical sites, reference standards, model architectures, and reporting practices introduces significant heterogeneity. A structured synthesis of current evidence is therefore warranted. Main text: This review synthesizes 35 studies published between 2019 and 2025, evaluating AI applications in four diagnostic domains: detection of periodontal bone loss, measurement of alveolar bone levels, identification of furcation involvement, and detection of periapical lesions. Convolutional neural network (CNN)-based models using periapical radiographs achieved moderate-to-high diagnostic accuracy (0.82-0.85) and AUCs above 0.88, comparable to clinician performance. Panoramic radiographs yielded lower sensitivity and specificity than CBCT, where deep learning systems reached higher accuracy (up to 0.91) and superior volumetric assessment. Intraoral photographic analyses showed variable performance (0.46-1.00), largely due to inconsistent imaging and reference standards. Emerging trends include hybrid segmentation-classification architectures, transformer-based networks, and clinician-in-the-loop approaches. Determinants of performance encompass reference standard quality, dataset diversity, anatomical complexity, and adherence to STARD-AI and TRIPOD-AI reporting frameworks. Conclusions: AI demonstrates clinically relevant diagnostic accuracy in periodontal imaging, especially for measurement standardization and decision support. Although autonomous diagnosis remains premature, integrating explainable, externally validated AI systems within clinician-guided workflows supported by standardized reporting offers a practical route toward clinical translation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.