LYNDON P ABBOTT , ANKITA SAIKIA , ROBERT P ANTHONAPPA
{"title":"ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PLATFORMS IN DENTAL CARIES DETECTION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS","authors":"LYNDON P ABBOTT , ANKITA SAIKIA , ROBERT P ANTHONAPPA","doi":"10.1016/j.jebdp.2024.102077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To assess Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms, machine learning methodologies and associated accuracies used in detecting dental caries from clinical images and dental radiographs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic search of 8 distinct electronic databases: Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Educational Resources Information Centre, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Explore, Science Direct, Directory of Open Access Journals and JSTOR, was conducted from January 2000 to March 2024. AI platforms, machine learning methodologies and associated accuracies of studies using AI for dental caries detection were extracted along with essential study characteristics. The quality of included studies was assessed using QUADAS-2 and the CLAIM checklist. Meta-analysis was performed to obtain a quantitative estimate of AI accuracy.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 2538 studies identified, 45 met the inclusion criteria and underwent qualitative synthesis. Of the 45 included studies, 33 used dental radiographs, and 12 used clinical images as datasets. A total of 21 different AI platforms were reported. The accuracy ranged from 41.5% to 98.6% across reported AI platforms. A quantitative meta-analysis across 7 studies reported a mean sensitivity of 76% [95% CI (65% - 85%)] and specificity of 91% [(95% CI (86% - 95%)]. The area under the curve (AUC) was 92% [95% CI (89% - 94%)], with high heterogeneity across included studies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Significant variability exists in AI performance for detecting dental caries across different AI platforms. Meta-analysis demonstrates that AI has superior sensitivity and equal specificity of detecting dental caries from clinical images as compared to bitewing radiography. Although AI is promising for dental caries detection, further refinement is necessary to achieve consistent and reliable performance across varying imaging modalities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48736,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice","volume":"25 1","pages":"Article 102077"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532338224001271","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
To assess Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms, machine learning methodologies and associated accuracies used in detecting dental caries from clinical images and dental radiographs.
Methods
A systematic search of 8 distinct electronic databases: Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Educational Resources Information Centre, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Explore, Science Direct, Directory of Open Access Journals and JSTOR, was conducted from January 2000 to March 2024. AI platforms, machine learning methodologies and associated accuracies of studies using AI for dental caries detection were extracted along with essential study characteristics. The quality of included studies was assessed using QUADAS-2 and the CLAIM checklist. Meta-analysis was performed to obtain a quantitative estimate of AI accuracy.
Results
Of the 2538 studies identified, 45 met the inclusion criteria and underwent qualitative synthesis. Of the 45 included studies, 33 used dental radiographs, and 12 used clinical images as datasets. A total of 21 different AI platforms were reported. The accuracy ranged from 41.5% to 98.6% across reported AI platforms. A quantitative meta-analysis across 7 studies reported a mean sensitivity of 76% [95% CI (65% - 85%)] and specificity of 91% [(95% CI (86% - 95%)]. The area under the curve (AUC) was 92% [95% CI (89% - 94%)], with high heterogeneity across included studies.
Conclusion
Significant variability exists in AI performance for detecting dental caries across different AI platforms. Meta-analysis demonstrates that AI has superior sensitivity and equal specificity of detecting dental caries from clinical images as compared to bitewing radiography. Although AI is promising for dental caries detection, further refinement is necessary to achieve consistent and reliable performance across varying imaging modalities.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice presents timely original articles, as well as reviews of articles on the results and outcomes of clinical procedures and treatment. The Journal advocates the use or rejection of a procedure based on solid, clinical evidence found in literature. The Journal''s dynamic operating principles are explicitness in process and objectives, publication of the highest-quality reviews and original articles, and an emphasis on objectivity.