Diagnostic Accuracy of a Commercial AI-based Platform in Evaluating Endodontic Treatment Outcomes on Periapical Radiographs Using CBCT as the Reference Standard.
Marwa Allihaibi, Garrit Koller, Francesco Mannocci
{"title":"Diagnostic Accuracy of a Commercial AI-based Platform in Evaluating Endodontic Treatment Outcomes on Periapical Radiographs Using CBCT as the Reference Standard.","authors":"Marwa Allihaibi, Garrit Koller, Francesco Mannocci","doi":"10.1016/j.joen.2025.03.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise in dental diagnostics, however its accuracy in assessing endodontic treatment outcomes compared to experienced clinicians remains unclear. This study evaluated the performance of an AI-driven platform (Diagnocat) against experienced clinicians in assessing endodontic treatment outcomes on periapical radiographs, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) as the reference standard.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This retrospective diagnostic accuracy study analyzed 376 teeth (860 roots) from four prospective clinical trials. Treatment outcomes were assessed using periapical radiographs, independently evaluated by two calibrated endodontists and the AI-driven platform. CBCT scans served as the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The AI-driven platform demonstrated higher sensitivity but lower specificity than clinicians at both tooth (sensitivity: 67.3% vs 49.3%, p<0.001; specificity: 82.3% vs 92.5%, p<0.001) and root levels (sensitivity: 54.3% vs 43.8%, p=0.003; specificity: 86.7% vs 94.5%, p<0.001). Overall accuracy was comparable at the tooth level (AI: 76.3%, clinicians: 75.3%, p=0.716) but slightly lower for the AI-driven platform at the root level (78.5% vs 81.6%, p=0.021). ROC analysis showed comparable AUC values between the AI-driven platform and clinicians at both tooth (0.75 vs 0.71) and root levels (0.71 vs 0.69).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While the AI-driven platform demonstrated potential as an adjunctive tool for assessing endodontic treatment outcomes, particularly in detecting lesions that might be missed by human assessment, its lower specificity highlights the need for clinical oversight to prevent overdiagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":15703,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endodontics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2025.03.007","RegionNum":2,"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
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise in dental diagnostics, however its accuracy in assessing endodontic treatment outcomes compared to experienced clinicians remains unclear. This study evaluated the performance of an AI-driven platform (Diagnocat) against experienced clinicians in assessing endodontic treatment outcomes on periapical radiographs, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) as the reference standard.
Methodology: This retrospective diagnostic accuracy study analyzed 376 teeth (860 roots) from four prospective clinical trials. Treatment outcomes were assessed using periapical radiographs, independently evaluated by two calibrated endodontists and the AI-driven platform. CBCT scans served as the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) were calculated.
Results: The AI-driven platform demonstrated higher sensitivity but lower specificity than clinicians at both tooth (sensitivity: 67.3% vs 49.3%, p<0.001; specificity: 82.3% vs 92.5%, p<0.001) and root levels (sensitivity: 54.3% vs 43.8%, p=0.003; specificity: 86.7% vs 94.5%, p<0.001). Overall accuracy was comparable at the tooth level (AI: 76.3%, clinicians: 75.3%, p=0.716) but slightly lower for the AI-driven platform at the root level (78.5% vs 81.6%, p=0.021). ROC analysis showed comparable AUC values between the AI-driven platform and clinicians at both tooth (0.75 vs 0.71) and root levels (0.71 vs 0.69).
Conclusion: While the AI-driven platform demonstrated potential as an adjunctive tool for assessing endodontic treatment outcomes, particularly in detecting lesions that might be missed by human assessment, its lower specificity highlights the need for clinical oversight to prevent overdiagnosis.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Endodontics, the official journal of the American Association of Endodontists, publishes scientific articles, case reports and comparison studies evaluating materials and methods of pulp conservation and endodontic treatment. Endodontists and general dentists can learn about new concepts in root canal treatment and the latest advances in techniques and instrumentation in the one journal that helps them keep pace with rapid changes in this field.