ReviewOral radiology2026
Deep Learning in Dental Imaging: Advances, Challenges, and Future.
Review in Oral radiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence and deep learning have expanded dental imaging analysis by enabling automated detection, classification, localization, segmentation, and tooth identification in routinely acquired radiographs. This review provides a practice-oriented synthesis that links the clinical question and required output type to what reported performance actually implies for use in dental care. Using a structured, semi-systematic literature search with quantitative eligibility criteria, we synthesize findings across major application areas including odontogenic cysts and tumors, periapical and apical radiolucencies, dental caries, periodontal bone loss assessment and staging, oral cancer screening, multi-condition diagnosis, and automated tooth numbering. Across these tasks, studies consistently report stronger results for clearly visible pathology and well-defined boundaries, while early-stage disease, small lesions, overlapping anatomy, and restoration-related artifacts drive the most important failure modes. We also highlight why cross-study comparisons are often unreliable due to differences in reference standards, class taxonomies, units of analysis, preprocessing and region-of-interest assumptions, and the frequent absence of external validation. Clinically, the most credible near-term role is calibrated decision support for case prioritization and clinician verification, supported by auditable spatial outputs. Future progress is most directly enabled by multi-center validation, severity-aware reporting, and calibration or uncertainty handling that is aligned with workflow use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42319635What 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.