MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416850540 · doi:10.1186/s12903-025-07254-x

Use of artificial intelligence for detection of MB2 canals in maxillary first molars on CBCT: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W4416850540 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmood Dashti, Farshad Khosraviani, Niloofar Ghadimi, Kimia Baghaei, Sara Esmaeili, Mahjube Entezar-e-Ghaem, Zohaib Khurshid, Thanaphum Osathanon

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Oral Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOral and maxillofacial surgeryMolarEndodonticsMEDLINEConsistency (knowledge bases)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Detecting the second mesiobuccal (MB2) canal in maxillary first molars is challenging, even with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Artificial intelligence (AI), especially deep learning, has been explored as a tool to aid detection. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of AI in identifying MB2 canals on CBCT. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive electronic search across five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus Secondary) retrieved 52 articles. After removing duplicates and screening titles/abstracts, 7 full texts were assessed, of which 4 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were eligible if they applied AI algorithms for MB2 detection in CBCT images and reported diagnostic performance outcomes. Data extraction included study design, dataset size, AI model architecture, and diagnostic metrics. Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic, and publication bias was evaluated with Egger's test. RESULTS: Four studies were included. AI models achieved a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 and specificity of 0.74. Deep learning models outperformed traditional machine learning, with higher sensitivity (0.87 vs. 0.80), specificity (0.90 vs. 0.68), and accuracy (0.84 vs. 0.75). Considerable heterogeneity and small sample sizes limited generalizability. CONCLUSION: AI, particularly deep learning, shows promise in detecting MB2 canals on CBCT. While current evidence is preliminary, standardised AI training and reporting protocols, together with larger multicenter studies, are needed to validate these tools. Clinically, AI could serve as a supplementary aid to improve diagnostic consistency and reduce missed canals during endodontic treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.029
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.259
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.161 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Oral HealthSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207