Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Software in Intraoral, Panoramic, and CBCT Imaging: A Pilot Study
4 affiliations
- 1Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 40-055 Katowice, Poland
- 2Department of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiodiagnostics, Faculty of Medical Dentistry, Medical University of Lublin, 20-093 Lublin, Poland
- 3Department of Biophysics, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 40-055 Katowice, Poland
- 4Department of Dental Propedeutics, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 40-055 Katowice, Poland
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in dental radiology, but its performance may depend on the imaging modality and the analytical model. This pilot (feasibility) study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based software (Diagnocat) in intraoral, panoramic, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images against a single-expert reference standard, accounting both for indications of pathology and for indications of its absence. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, 45 anonymized examinations (15 intraoral radiographs, 15 panoramic radiographs, and 15 CBCT) were assessed. The reference standard was established by an expert in dental and maxillofacial radiology with over 30 years of experience, who took no part in selecting the examinations and was blinded to the software output. The primary analysis was performed per diagnostic indication, defined as the combination of one examination, one diagnostic category, and one anatomical location. A secondary binary “pathology versus no pathology” analysis was performed with one observation per tooth or anatomical site. Because observations were clustered within examinations and patients, the analysis was descriptive; no hypothesis tests were performed, and no confidence intervals were reported. Results: In the primary per-indication analysis, 999 diagnostic indications were recorded in the reference standard and 1017 by the software; 791 were concordant, comprising 45 of 71 reference indications for intraoral radiographs, 358 of 452 for panoramic radiographs, and 388 of 476 for CBCT. In the secondary binary analysis, intraoral radiographs yielded sensitivity 0.79, specificity 0.59, precision 0.71, and F1-score (the harmonic mean of sensitivity and precision) 0.75; panoramic radiographs 0.73, 0.88, 0.79, and 0.75; and CBCT 0.80, 0.86, 0.78, and 0.79. Sensitivity and F1-score were numerically highest for CBCT. The three modality groups comprised different patients, anatomical regions, and distributions of diagnostic categories, so these differences cannot be attributed to the imaging modality alone. Conclusions: In this pilot study, the performance of the software varied across imaging modalities and diagnostic categories. Because the set of negative units was defined by the locations charted by the expert rather than by a complete anatomical inventory, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy are reported as secondary descriptive outcomes, are conditional on that operational definition, and are not compared between modalities. The findings are exploratory and hypothesis-generating. The software may support the interpretation of dental radiographs, but should not replace expert assessment.
Related
- CT-Referenced Diagnostic Performance and Complementary Error Patterns of Artificial Intelligence Versus a Single Emergency Physician in Chest Radiograph Interpretation: A Retrospective Paired Diagnostic Accuracy Study
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Burn Assessment Demonstrates High Diagnostic Accuracy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- Artificial intelligence and digital health in bronchoscopy: advances in diagnostic accuracy, real-time navigation and procedural skills training
- Clinical setting-dependent diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence and store-and-forward diabetic retinopathy screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Artificial Intelligence Versus Human Interpretation in Diagnostic Radiology: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy and Operational Efficiency.
BibTeX
@article{czyz2026diagnostic,
title = {{Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Software in Intraoral, Panoramic, and CBCT Imaging: A Pilot Study}},
author = {Wojciech Czyż and Ingrid Różyło-Kalinowska and Paweł Dolibog and Małgorzata Skucha-Nowak},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15207835},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/7835},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Software in Intraoral, Panoramic, and CBCT Imaging: A Pilot Study
AU - Wojciech Czyż
AU - Ingrid Różyło-Kalinowska
AU - Paweł Dolibog
AU - Małgorzata Skucha-Nowak
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15207835
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/7835
AB - Background/Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in dental radiology, but its performance may depend on the imaging modality and the analytical model. This pilot (feasibility) study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based software (Diagnocat) in intraoral, panoramic, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images against a single-expert reference standard, accounting both for indications of pathology and for indications of its absence. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, 45 anonymized examinations (15 intraoral radiographs, 15 panoramic radiographs, and 15 CBCT) were assessed. The reference standard was established by an expert in dental and maxillofacial radiology with over 30 years of experience, who took no part in selecting the examinations and was blinded to the software output. The primary analysis was performed per diagnostic indication, defined as the combination of one examination, one diagnostic category, and one anatomical location. A secondary binary “pathology versus no pathology” analysis was performed with one observation per tooth or anatomical site. Because observations were clustered within examinations and patients, the analysis was descriptive; no hypothesis tests were performed, and no confidence intervals were reported. Results: In the primary per-indication analysis, 999 diagnostic indications were recorded in the reference standard and 1017 by the software; 791 were concordant, comprising 45 of 71 reference indications for intraoral radiographs, 358 of 452 for panoramic radiographs, and 388 of 476 for CBCT. In the secondary binary analysis, intraoral radiographs yielded sensitivity 0.79, specificity 0.59, precision 0.71, and F1-score (the harmonic mean of sensitivity and precision) 0.75; panoramic radiographs 0.73, 0.88, 0.79, and 0.75; and CBCT 0.80, 0.86, 0.78, and 0.79. Sensitivity and F1-score were numerically highest for CBCT. The three modality groups comprised different patients, anatomical regions, and distributions of diagnostic categories, so these differences cannot be attributed to the imaging modality alone. Conclusions: In this pilot study, the performance of the software varied across imaging modalities and diagnostic categories. Because the set of negative units was defined by the locations charted by the expert rather than by a complete anatomical inventory, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy are reported as secondary descriptive outcomes, are conditional on that operational definition, and are not compared between modalities. The findings are exploratory and hypothesis-generating. The software may support the interpretation of dental radiographs, but should not replace expert assessment.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -