Augmented intelligence in oral and maxillofacial radiology: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming diagnostic imaging in dentistry. This systematic review evaluates existing literature on augmented intelligence in dentomaxillofacial radiology, focusing on its influence on human collaboration in interpreting dental imaging. STUDY DESIGN: A literature search across seven databases and gray literature was conducted. Studies evaluating clinician performance with AI-assistance were included, while reviews, surveys, and case reports were excluded. The QUADAS-2 tool assessed the risk of bias. RESULTS: Sixteen studies assessed the influence of AI on radiographic interpretation. AI-assisted caries detection consistently improved accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Detection of apical pathoses and jaw lesion segmentation improved accuracy, reducing diagnostic time. Cephalometric landmark identification showed increased accuracy, particularly for students. Soft tissue calcification detection improved accuracy, but sensitivity decreased. Overall, augmented intelligence enhanced interobserver agreement and reduced diagnostic variability, with general dentists and students showing the greatest gains. CONCLUSIONS: Augmented intelligence enhances dental radiographic interpretation by improving tasks, particularly for less experienced clinicians, and positively influences clinical decision-making. However, AI performance remains inconsistent in challenging cases involving complex pathoses or varied imaging conditions. While it complements rather than replaces clinicians, further validation of AI's generalizability and reliability using larger, diverse datasets is necessary.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".