Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42126492›Full record

SynthesisOdontology2026

Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence in periapical radiography: a systematic review.

Tulin Tasdemir, Melek Tassoker, Abdullah Arpacı, Ayşenur Kula, Ferhat Enes Kocabiyik, Mehmet Enes İyişenyürek, Huseyin Hakli

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Odontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

7 authors.

Tulin TasdemirFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Nigde Omer Halisdemir University, 51240, Nigde, Türkiye. dt.tulintasdemir@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4884-4715
Melek TassokerFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42050, Meram, Konya, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2062-5713
Abdullah ArpacıDepartment of Computer Engineering, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42090, Konya, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-9653-4394
Ayşenur KulaDepartment of Computer Engineering, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42090, Konya, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-9058-8359
Ferhat Enes KocabiyikDepartment of Computer Engineering, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42090, Konya, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-0995-4609
Mehmet Enes İyişenyürekDepartment of Computer Engineering, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42090, Konya, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-5145-2051
Huseyin HakliDepartment of Computer Engineering, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42090, Konya, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5019-071X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) models in periapical radiography for detection, classification, and segmentation tasks compared to human experts, while critically appraising methodological quality and risk of bias. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251132033). Strict exclusion criteria were applied to studies with insufficient dataset sizes (< 200 images) lacking augmentation, ambiguous reference standards, or reporting only accuracy without complementary metrics. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on June 23, 2025, across five electronic databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore. The search strategy combined keywords related to "periapical radiography" (e.g., periapical X-ray), "artificial intelligence" (e.g., deep learning, neural networks), and specific diagnostic tasks, with no restrictions on publication date or language. Studies utilizing artificial intelligence models for diagnostic tasks on periapical radiographs and validating performance against a human reference standard (expert consensus) were eligible for inclusion. Out of 544 identified records, 47 studies met the full eligibility criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. AI models possess a high diagnostic potential in periapical radiography, performing at a level comparable to human experts in tasks such as pathology detection, anatomical segmentation, and implant classification. However, their clinical applicability is currently limited by a high risk of bias, lack of external validation, reliance on cropped datasets, and the use of human consensus as a surrogate reference standard. Future research must prioritize full-arch evaluations, anatomical region-specific performance reporting, and adherence to AI-specific standardized metrics.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePeriapical DiseasesRadiography, DentalHumansArtificial intelligenceDeep learningDentistryDiagnostic performancePeriapical radiography

Identifiers

PMID42126492
PMCPMC13630898

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.