Application of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Dentistry, a Comprehensive Review of Literature.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statement of the Problem: In recent years, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly popular in dentistry because it facilitates the process of diagnosis and clinical decision-making. However, AI holds multiple prominent drawbacks, which restrict its wide application today. It is necessary for dentists to be aware of AI's pros and cons before its implementation. Purpose: Therefore, the present study was conducted to comprehensively review various applications of AI in all dental branches along with its advantages and disadvantages. Materials and Method: For this review article, a complete query was carried out on PubMed and Google Scholar databases and the studies published during 2010-2022 were collected using the keywords "Artificial Intelligence", "Dentistry," "Machine learning," "Deep learning," and "Diagnostic System." Ultimately, 116 relevant articles focused on artificial intelligence in dentistry were selected and evaluated. Results: In new research AI applications in detecting dental abnormalities and oral malignancies based on radiographic view and histopathological features, designing dental implants and crowns, determining tooth preparation finishing line, analyzing growth patterns, estimating biological age, predicting the viability of dental pulp stem cells, analyzing the gene expression of periapical lesions, forensic dentistry, and predicting the success rate of treatments, have been mentioned. Despite AI's benefits in clinical dentistry, three controversial challenges including ease of use, financial return on investment, and evidence of performance exist and need to be managed. Conclusion: As evidenced by the obtained results, the most crucial progression of AI is in oral malignancies' diagnostic systems. However, AI's newest advancements in various branches of dentistry require further scientific work before being applied to clinical practice. Moreover, the immense use of AI in clinical dentistry is only achievable when its challenges are appropriately managed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".