José Evando da Silva-Filho, Zildenilson da Silva Sousa, Ana Paula Caracas de-Araújo, Lívia Dos Santos Fornagero, Milena Pinheiro Machado, André Wescley Oliveira de Aguiar, Caio Marques Silva, Danielle Frota de Albuquerque, Eduardo Diogo Gurgel-Filho
{"title":"Deep Learning for Detecting Periapical Bone Rarefaction in Panoramic Radiographs: A Systematic Review and Critical Assessment.","authors":"José Evando da Silva-Filho, Zildenilson da Silva Sousa, Ana Paula Caracas de-Araújo, Lívia Dos Santos Fornagero, Milena Pinheiro Machado, André Wescley Oliveira de Aguiar, Caio Marques Silva, Danielle Frota de Albuquerque, Eduardo Diogo Gurgel-Filho","doi":"10.1093/dmfr/twaf044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate deep learning (DL)-based models for detecting periapical bone rarefaction (PBRs) in panoramic radiographs (PRs), analyzing their feasibility and performance in dental practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was conducted across seven databases and partial grey literature up to November 15, 2024, using Medical Subject Headings and entry terms related to DL, PBRs, and PRs. Studies assessing DL-based models for detecting and classifying PBRs in conventional PRs were included, while those using non-PR imaging or focusing solely on non-PBR lesions were excluded. Two independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction, and quality assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, mostly from Asia (58.3%). The risk of bias was moderate in 10 studies (83.3%) and high in 2 (16.7%). DL models showed moderate to high performance in PBR detection (sensitivity: 26-100%; specificity: 51-100%), with U-NET and YOLO being the most used algorithms. Only one study (8.3%) distinguished Periapical Granuloma from Periapical Cysts, revealing a classification gap. Key challenges included limited generalization due to small datasets, anatomical superimpositions in PRs, and variability in reported metrics, compromising models comparison.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review underscores that DL-based has the potential to become a valuable tool in dental image diagnostics, but it cannot yet be considered a definitive practice. Multicenter collaboration is needed to diversify data and democratize those tools. Standardized performance reporting is critical for fair comparability between different models.</p>","PeriodicalId":11261,"journal":{"name":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dmfr/twaf044","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
Objectives: To evaluate deep learning (DL)-based models for detecting periapical bone rarefaction (PBRs) in panoramic radiographs (PRs), analyzing their feasibility and performance in dental practice.
Methods: A search was conducted across seven databases and partial grey literature up to November 15, 2024, using Medical Subject Headings and entry terms related to DL, PBRs, and PRs. Studies assessing DL-based models for detecting and classifying PBRs in conventional PRs were included, while those using non-PR imaging or focusing solely on non-PBR lesions were excluded. Two independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction, and quality assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer.
Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, mostly from Asia (58.3%). The risk of bias was moderate in 10 studies (83.3%) and high in 2 (16.7%). DL models showed moderate to high performance in PBR detection (sensitivity: 26-100%; specificity: 51-100%), with U-NET and YOLO being the most used algorithms. Only one study (8.3%) distinguished Periapical Granuloma from Periapical Cysts, revealing a classification gap. Key challenges included limited generalization due to small datasets, anatomical superimpositions in PRs, and variability in reported metrics, compromising models comparison.
Conclusion: This review underscores that DL-based has the potential to become a valuable tool in dental image diagnostics, but it cannot yet be considered a definitive practice. Multicenter collaboration is needed to diversify data and democratize those tools. Standardized performance reporting is critical for fair comparability between different models.
期刊介绍:
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (DMFR) is the journal of the International Association of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (IADMFR) and covers the closely related fields of oral radiology and head and neck imaging.
Established in 1972, DMFR is a key resource keeping dentists, radiologists and clinicians and scientists with an interest in Head and Neck imaging abreast of important research and developments in oral and maxillofacial radiology.
The DMFR editorial board features a panel of international experts including Editor-in-Chief Professor Ralf Schulze. Our editorial board provide their expertise and guidance in shaping the content and direction of the journal.
Quick Facts:
- 2015 Impact Factor - 1.919
- Receipt to first decision - average of 3 weeks
- Acceptance to online publication - average of 3 weeks
- Open access option
- ISSN: 0250-832X
- eISSN: 1476-542X