Diagnostic Accuracy of a Commercial AI-based Platform in Evaluating Endodontic Treatment Outcomes on Periapical Radiographs Using CBCT as the Reference Standard.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of endodontics
Journal of endodontics 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
224
审稿时长
42 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信