Artificial Intelligence for Detection of External Cervical Resorption Using Label-Efficient Self-Supervised Learning Method.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to leverage label-efficient self-supervised learning (SSL) to train a model that can detect ECR and differentiate it from caries. METHODS: Periapical (PA) radiographs of teeth with ECR defects were collected. Two board-certified endodontists reviewed PA radiographs and cone beam computed tomographic (CBCT) images independently to determine presence of ECR (ground truth). Radiographic data were divided into 3 regions of interest (ROIs): healthy teeth, teeth with ECR, and teeth with caries. Nine contrastive SSL models (SimCLR v2, MoCo v2, BYOL, DINO, NNCLR, SwAV, MSN, Barlow Twins, and SimSiam) were implemented in the assessment alongside 7 baseline deep learning models (ResNet-18, ResNet-50, VGG16, DenseNet, MobileNetV2, ResNeXt-50, and InceptionV3). A 10-fold cross-validation strategy and a hold-out test set were employed for model evaluation. Model performance was assessed via various metrics including classification accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. RESULTS: Included were 190 PA radiographs, composed of 470 ROIs. Results from 10-fold cross-validation demonstrated that most SSL models outperformed the transfer learning baseline models, with DINO achieving the highest mean accuracy (85.64 ± 4.56), significantly outperforming 13 other models (P < .05). DINO reached the highest test set (ie, 3 ROIs) accuracy (84.09%) while MoCo v2 exhibited the highest recall and F1-score (77.37% and 82.93%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that AI can assist clinicians in detecting ECR and differentiating it from caries. Additionally, it introduced the application of SSL in detecting ECR, emphasizing that SSL-based models can outperform transfer learning baselines and reduce reliance on large, labeled datasets.

Prevalence and Features of Maxillary Sinus Septa in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate: Cone Beam Computed Tomography Imaging Technique.

OBJECTIVE: The development of the maxillary sinus is different in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) compared to non-CLP individuals. To investigate the prevalence and features of maxillary sinus septa (MSS) in patients with CLP in comparison with the non-CLP population. DESIGN: Retrospective study. INTERVENTION: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) evaluation. SETTING: CLP center in Shiraz faculty of dentistry, Iran. PATIENTS: A total 306 sinuses (88 cleft and 218 noncleft) on 153 images (CLP group: n = 66; control group: n = 87) were examined to determine the prevalence of septa and characterize them. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sinus septa were characterized according to height, orientation, angle, origin, and location. The chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of septa was 28.9% and 32.1% in the CLP and control groups, respectively. No significant difference was found between the study groups in terms of prevalence, location, and orientation of MSS. The average height and angle of septa were significantly higher in the control group compared to the CLP group. Inferior origin was significantly more prevalent in the control group than in the CLP group (P = .004). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the prevalence of MSS between patients with CLP and non-CLP individuals. However, certain features of the septa were different in patients with CLP.

Deep Learning for Detection of Periapical Radiolucent Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the overall accuracy of deep learning models in detecting periapical (PA) radiolucent lesions in dental radiographs, when compared to expert clinicians. METHODS: Electronic databases of Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), Scopus, Google Scholar, and arXiv were searched. Quality of eligible studies was assessed by using Quality Assessment and Diagnostic Accuracy Tool-2. Quantitative analyses were conducted using hierarchical logistic regression for meta-analyses on diagnostic accuracy. Subgroup analyses on different image modalities (PA radiographs, panoramic radiographs, and cone beam computed tomographic images) and on different deep learning tasks (classification, segmentation, object detection) were conducted. Certainty of evidence was assessed by using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. RESULTS: A total of 932 studies were screened. Eighteen studies were included in the systematic review, out of which 6 studies were selected for quantitative analyses. Six studies had low risk of bias. Twelve studies had risk of bias. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of included studies (all image modalities; all tasks) were 0.925 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.862-0.960), 0.852 (95% CI, 0.810-0.885), 6.261 (95% CI, 4.717-8.311), 0.087 (95% CI, 0.045-0.168), and 71.692 (95% CI, 29.957-171.565), respectively. No publication bias was detected (Egger's test, P = .82). Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluationshowed a "high" certainty of evidence for the studies included in the meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: Compared to expert clinicians, deep learning showed highly accurate results in detecting PA radiolucent lesions in dental radiographs. Most studies had risk of bias. There was a lack of prospective studies.

Deep learning in periodontology and oral implantology: A scoping review.

Deep learning (DL) has been employed for a wide range of tasks in dentistry. We aimed to systematically review studies employing DL for periodontal and implantological purposes. A systematic electronic search was conducted on four databases (Medline via PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase) and a repository (ArXiv) for publications after 2010, without any limitation on language. In the present review, we included studies that reported deep learning models' performance on periodontal or oral implantological tasks. Given the heterogeneities in the included studies, no meta-analysis was performed. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We included 47 studies: focusing on imaging data (n = 20) and non-imaging data in periodontology (n = 12), or dental implantology (n = 15). The detection of periodontitis and gingivitis or periodontal bone loss, the classification of dental implant systems, or the prediction of treatment outcomes in periodontology and implantology were major use cases. The performance of the models was generally high. However, it varied given the employed methods (which includes various types of convolutional neural networks (CNN) and multi-layered perceptron (MLP)), the variety in specific modeling tasks, as well as the chosen and reported outcomes, outcome measures and outcome level. Only a few studies (n = 7) showed a low risk of bias across all assessed domains. A growing number of studies evaluated DL for periodontal or implantological objectives. Heterogeneity in study design, poor reporting and a high risk of bias severely limit the comparability of studies and the robustness of the overall evidence.