AI-Based Detection of Proximal Caries Across Radiographic Modalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Clicks: 4
ID: 319773
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
0.9
/100
4 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #11 of 46 articles by views in dentomaxillofacial radiology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models in detecting proximal caries across different radiographic modalities. METHODS: We systematically searched in five electronic databases: Web of Science, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect and CNKI. Essential study characteristics, AI models and their accuracy metrics for proximal caries detection were extracted. Methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed with QUADAS-2. Studies judged to be of adequate quality were retained for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included: fifteen employed bitewing radiographs, three utilized panoramic radiographs, and two adopted periapical radiographs. AI accuracy ranged from 28.5% to 100%. Due to the unavailability of essential 2 × 2 contingency data, only ten studies (six bitewing, three panoramic, and one periapical) were eligible for meta-analysis, yielding a pooled sensitivity of 76% (95% CI: 70%-80%), specificity of 94% (95% CI: 90%-96%), and Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) AUC of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92). Substantial heterogeneity was observed. CONCLUSION: AI models show promising diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries, with bitewing radiographs yielding slightly better performance than panoramic views. While AI holds potential as a clinical decision-support tool, high heterogeneity and limited external validation remain significant barriers to clinical translation. Future work should prioritize prospective, multicenter validation and open datasets to support clinical translation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This systematic review covers studies up to October 2025, simultaneously evaluate AI performance of different modalities, enabling direct cross-modal comparison. By stratifying analyses by task type, dataset size, and imaging modality, this study identifies specific sources of performance heterogeneity that have previously confounded pooled estimates in the field. This review also establishes evidence thresholds for clinical implementation, serving as a methodological checkpoint to guide future research.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7167486874
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Yiyang Wang, Di Fu, Ge Zhou, Ling Zou |
| Journal | dentomaxillofacial radiology |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/dmfr/twag046
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.