{"title":"Dental practitioners versus artificial intelligence software in assessing alveolar bone loss using intraoral radiographs","authors":"Ammar Almarghlani MSc , Jumana Fakhri BDS , Abeer Almarhoon BDS , Ghazzal Ghonaim BDS , Hassan Abed PhD , Rayan Sharka PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jtumed.2025.04.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) in the dental field can potentially enhance the efficiency of dental care. However, few studies have investigated whether AI software can achieve results comparable to those obtained by dental practitioners (general practitioners (GPs) and specialists) when assessing alveolar bone loss in a clinical setting. Thus, this study compared the performance of AI in assessing periodontal bone loss with those of GPs and specialists.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This comparative cross-sectional study evaluated the performance of dental practitioners and AI software in assessing alveolar bone loss. Radiographs were randomly selected to ensure representative samples. Dental practitioners independently evaluated the radiographs, and the AI software “Second Opinion Software” was tested using the same set of radiographs evaluated by the dental practitioners. The results produced by the AI software were then compared with the baseline values to measure their accuracy and allow direct comparison with the performance of human specialists.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The survey received 149 responses, where each answered 10 questions to compare the measurements made by AI and dental practitioners when assessing the amount of bone loss radiographically. The mean estimates of the participants had a moderate positive correlation with the radiographic measurements (rho = 0.547, <em>p</em> < 0.001) and a weaker but still significant correlation with AI measurements (rho = 0.365, <em>p</em> < 0.001). AI measurements had a stronger positive correlation with the radiographic measurements (rho = 0.712, <em>p</em> < 0.001) compared with their correlation with the estimates of dental practitioners.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study highlights the capacity of AI software to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of radiograph-based evaluations of alveolar bone loss. Dental practitioners are vital for the clinical experience but AI technology provides a consistent and replicable methodology. Future collaborations between AI experts, researchers, and practitioners could potentially optimize patient care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences","volume":"20 3","pages":"Pages 272-279"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1658361225000344","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) in the dental field can potentially enhance the efficiency of dental care. However, few studies have investigated whether AI software can achieve results comparable to those obtained by dental practitioners (general practitioners (GPs) and specialists) when assessing alveolar bone loss in a clinical setting. Thus, this study compared the performance of AI in assessing periodontal bone loss with those of GPs and specialists.
Methods
This comparative cross-sectional study evaluated the performance of dental practitioners and AI software in assessing alveolar bone loss. Radiographs were randomly selected to ensure representative samples. Dental practitioners independently evaluated the radiographs, and the AI software “Second Opinion Software” was tested using the same set of radiographs evaluated by the dental practitioners. The results produced by the AI software were then compared with the baseline values to measure their accuracy and allow direct comparison with the performance of human specialists.
Results
The survey received 149 responses, where each answered 10 questions to compare the measurements made by AI and dental practitioners when assessing the amount of bone loss radiographically. The mean estimates of the participants had a moderate positive correlation with the radiographic measurements (rho = 0.547, p < 0.001) and a weaker but still significant correlation with AI measurements (rho = 0.365, p < 0.001). AI measurements had a stronger positive correlation with the radiographic measurements (rho = 0.712, p < 0.001) compared with their correlation with the estimates of dental practitioners.
Conclusion
This study highlights the capacity of AI software to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of radiograph-based evaluations of alveolar bone loss. Dental practitioners are vital for the clinical experience but AI technology provides a consistent and replicable methodology. Future collaborations between AI experts, researchers, and practitioners could potentially optimize patient care.
目的将人工智能(AI)技术应用于口腔领域,可以提高口腔护理的效率。然而,很少有研究调查人工智能软件在临床评估牙槽骨丢失时是否能达到与牙科医生(全科医生(gp)和专家)所获得的结果相当的结果。因此,本研究比较了人工智能在评估牙周骨质流失方面与全科医生和专科医生的表现。方法本对比横断面研究评估了牙科医生和人工智能软件在评估牙槽骨丢失方面的表现。随机选择x光片以确保样本的代表性。牙科医生独立评估x光片,并使用牙科医生评估的同一组x光片对人工智能软件“第二意见软件”进行测试。然后将人工智能软件产生的结果与基线值进行比较,以衡量其准确性,并允许与人类专家的表现进行直接比较。结果该调查共收到149份回复,每个回复回答10个问题,以比较人工智能和牙科医生在评估骨质流失量时所做的测量结果。参与者的平均估计值与x线测量值有中度正相关(rho = 0.547, p <;0.001),与AI测量值的相关性较弱,但仍然显著(rho = 0.365, p <;0.001)。AI测量值与x线测量值有较强的正相关(rho = 0.712, p <;0.001),与牙科医生的估计值的相关性进行了比较。结论本研究强调了人工智能软件提高基于x线片的牙槽骨丢失评估的准确性和效率的能力。牙科医生对临床经验至关重要,但人工智能技术提供了一致且可复制的方法。未来人工智能专家、研究人员和从业者之间的合作可能会优化患者护理。