Artificial Intelligence‐Based Detection and Numbering of Dental Implants on Panoramic Radiographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI)-based deep learning model for the detection and numbering of dental implants in panoramic radiographs. The novelty of this model lies in its ability to both detect and number implants, offering improvements in clinical decision support for dental implantology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective dataset of 32 585 panoramic radiographs, collected from patients at Sivas Cumhuriyet University between 2014 and 2024, was utilized. Two deep-learning models were trained using the YOLOv8 algorithm. The first model classified the regions of the jaw to number the teeth and identify implant regions, while the second model performed implant segmentation. Performance metrics including precision, recall, and F1-score were used to evaluate the model's effectiveness. RESULTS: The implant segmentation model achieved a precision of 91.4%, recall of 90.5%, and an F1-score of 93.1%. For the implant-numbering task, precision ranged from 0.94 to 0.981, recall from 0.895 to 0.956, and F1-scores from 0.917 to 0.966 across various jaw regions. The analysis revealed that implants were most frequently located in the maxillary posterior region. CONCLUSIONS: The AI model demonstrated high accuracy in detecting and numbering dental implants in panoramic radiographs. This technology offers the potential to reduce clinicians' workload and improve diagnostic accuracy in dental implantology. Further validation across more diverse datasets is recommended to enhance its clinical applicability. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This AI model could revolutionize dental implant detection and classification, providing fast, objective analyses to support clinical decision-making in dental practices.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".