Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Endodontics

Artificial intelligence: is it more accurate than endodontists in root canal therapy?

Evidence-Based Dentistry volume 24, pages 106–107 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Data sources

The following databases were electronically searched (up to 20 March 2022): PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library. This was followed by hand-searching the reference lists of the included articles. The search was restricted to articles published in English. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of artificial intelligence in identifying, analyzing, and interpreting radiographic features related to endodontic therapy.

Study selection

The selection criteria were limited to trials evaluating the effectiveness of artificial intelligence in identifying, analyzing, and interpreting radiographic features related to endodontic therapy.

Types of studies

Clinical, ex-vivo, and in-vitro trials.

Types of radiographic images

Two-dimensional intra-oral imaging (bitewings and/or periapicals), panoramic radiographs (PRs), and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Exclusion criteria

1) Case reports, letters, and commentaries; 2) Reviews, conferences, and books; 3) Inaccessible reports.

Data extraction and synthesis

The titles and abstracts of the results of the searches were screened by two authors against the inclusion criteria. The full text of any potentially relevant abstract and title were retrieved for more comprehensive assessment. The risk of bias was assessed initially by two examiners and then by two authors. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus.

Results

Out of the 1131 articles which were identified in the initial search, 30 were considered relevant, and only 24 articles were eventually included. The exclusion of the six articles was related to the absence of appropriate clinical or radiological data. Meta-analysis was not performed due to high heterogeneity. Various degrees of bias were detected in more than 58% of the included studies.

Conclusions

Although most of the included studies were biased, the authors concluded that the use of artificial intelligence can be an effective alternative in identifying, analyzing and interpreting radiographic features related to root canal therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Pauwels R, Brasil DM, Yamasaki MC, Jacobs R, Bosmans H, Freitas DQ, et al. Artificial intelligence for detection of periapical lesions on intraoral radiographs: comparison between convolutional neural networks and human observers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2021;131:610–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2021.01.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pethani F. Promises and perils of artificial intelligence in dentistry. Aust Dent J. 2021;66:124–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12812.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bluemke DA, Moy L, Bredella MA, Ertl-Wagner BB, Fowler KJ, Goh VJ, et al. Assessing radiology research on artificial intelligence: a brief guide for authors, reviewers, and readers-from the Radiology Editorial Board. Radiology. 2020;294:487–9. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019192515.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mongan J, Moy L, Kahn CE Jr. Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): a guide for authors and reviewers. Radiol Artif Intell. 2020;2:e200029. https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.2020200029.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical MSc in Endodontics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Mohammed Murad

  2. Clinical MSc in Prosthetic Dentistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Mohammed Murad

  3. Division of Clinical Dentistry, The Primary Health Care Corporation, P.O. Box: 26555, Doha, Qatar

    Mohammed Murad

  4. College of Dental Medicine, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

    Faleh Tamimi

Authors
  1. Mohammed Murad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Faleh Tamimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammed Murad.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Murad, M., Tamimi, F. Artificial intelligence: is it more accurate than endodontists in root canal therapy?. Evid Based Dent 24, 106–107 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-023-00901-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-023-00901-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links