Rata Rokhshad, Ping Zhang, Hossein Mohammad-Rahimi, Parnian Shobeiri, Falk Schwendicke
{"title":"Current Applications of Artificial Intelligence for Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Rata Rokhshad, Ping Zhang, Hossein Mohammad-Rahimi, Parnian Shobeiri, Falk Schwendicke","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To systematically evaluate artificial intelligence applications for diagnostic and treatment planning possibilities in pediatric dentistry. <b>Methods:</b> PubMed<sup>®</sup>, EMBASE<sup>®</sup>, Scopus, Web of Science<sup>™</sup>, IEEE, medRxiv, arXiv, and Google Scholar were searched using specific search queries. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) checklist was used to assess the risk of bias assessment of the included studies. <b>Results:</b> Based on the initial screening, 33 eligible studies were included (among 3,542). Eleven studies appeared to have low bias risk across all QUADAS-2 domains. Most applications focused on early childhood caries diagnosis and prediction, tooth identification, oral health evaluation, and supernumerary tooth identification. Six studies evaluated AI tools for mesiodens or supernumerary tooth identification on radigraphs, four for primary tooth identification and/or numbering, seven studies to detect caries on radiographs, and 12 to predict early childhood caries. For these four tasks, the reported accuracy of AI varied from 60 percent to 99 percent, sensitivity was from 20 percent to 100 percent, specificity was from 49 percent to 100 percent, F1-score was from 60 percent to 97 percent, and the area-under-the-curve varied from 87 percent to 100 percent. <b>Conclusions:</b> The overall body of evidence regarding artificial intelligence applications in pediatric dentistry does not allow for firm conclusions. For a wide range of applications, AI shows promising accuracy. Future studies should focus on a comparison of AI against the standard of care and employ a set of standardized outcomes and metrics to allow comparison across studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":101357,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric dentistry","volume":"46 1","pages":"27-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To systematically evaluate artificial intelligence applications for diagnostic and treatment planning possibilities in pediatric dentistry. Methods: PubMed®, EMBASE®, Scopus, Web of Science™, IEEE, medRxiv, arXiv, and Google Scholar were searched using specific search queries. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) checklist was used to assess the risk of bias assessment of the included studies. Results: Based on the initial screening, 33 eligible studies were included (among 3,542). Eleven studies appeared to have low bias risk across all QUADAS-2 domains. Most applications focused on early childhood caries diagnosis and prediction, tooth identification, oral health evaluation, and supernumerary tooth identification. Six studies evaluated AI tools for mesiodens or supernumerary tooth identification on radigraphs, four for primary tooth identification and/or numbering, seven studies to detect caries on radiographs, and 12 to predict early childhood caries. For these four tasks, the reported accuracy of AI varied from 60 percent to 99 percent, sensitivity was from 20 percent to 100 percent, specificity was from 49 percent to 100 percent, F1-score was from 60 percent to 97 percent, and the area-under-the-curve varied from 87 percent to 100 percent. Conclusions: The overall body of evidence regarding artificial intelligence applications in pediatric dentistry does not allow for firm conclusions. For a wide range of applications, AI shows promising accuracy. Future studies should focus on a comparison of AI against the standard of care and employ a set of standardized outcomes and metrics to allow comparison across studies.