Oral radiology · 2025
Assessment of posterior interproximal surfaces on bitewing and panoramic radiographs by dental interns and an artificial intelligence application.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Köse Emre, Hoşgör Sunay
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the interproximal surfaces of posterior teeth using panoramic and bitewing radiographs, and to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dental interns with that of an artificial intelligence application.
METHODS: Interproximal surfaces were evaluated on 11 panoramic radiographs and 22 bitewing radiographs obtained from 11 patients. The evaluation focused on the presence and depth of caries on interproximal surfaces without restorative fillings, and on the detection of secondary caries and overhanging dental restorations on restored surfaces. Panoramic and bitewing radiographs were evaluated by 20 fourth- and 20 fifth-year dental interns, and CranioCatch.
RESULTS: Bitewing radiographs were significantly more effective than panoramic radiographs in detecting interproximal caries, caries depth, secondary caries, and overhanging restorations (p < 0.001). In the detection of secondary caries on bitewing radiographs, the artificial intelligence application performed worse than both dental intern groups, and this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.033). In determining caries depth on panoramic and bitewing radiographs, the artificial intelligence application yielded numerically higher diagnostic accuracy values compared to the dental intern groups, but these differences were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: Our study concluded that the diagnostic accuracy of the artificial intelligence application in evaluating the interproximal surfaces of posterior teeth was comparable to dental interns.
METHODS: Interproximal surfaces were evaluated on 11 panoramic radiographs and 22 bitewing radiographs obtained from 11 patients. The evaluation focused on the presence and depth of caries on interproximal surfaces without restorative fillings, and on the detection of secondary caries and overhanging dental restorations on restored surfaces. Panoramic and bitewing radiographs were evaluated by 20 fourth- and 20 fifth-year dental interns, and CranioCatch.
RESULTS: Bitewing radiographs were significantly more effective than panoramic radiographs in detecting interproximal caries, caries depth, secondary caries, and overhanging restorations (p < 0.001). In the detection of secondary caries on bitewing radiographs, the artificial intelligence application performed worse than both dental intern groups, and this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.033). In determining caries depth on panoramic and bitewing radiographs, the artificial intelligence application yielded numerically higher diagnostic accuracy values compared to the dental intern groups, but these differences were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: Our study concluded that the diagnostic accuracy of the artificial intelligence application in evaluating the interproximal surfaces of posterior teeth was comparable to dental interns.