Search

Data are a key resource for modern societies and expected to improve quality, accessibility, affordability, safety, and equity of health care. Dental care and research are currently transforming into what we term data dentistry, with 3 main applications: 1) medical data analysis uses deep learning, allowing one to master unprecedented amounts of data (language, speech, imagery) and put them to productive use. 2) Data-enriched clinical care integrates data from individual (e.g., demographic, social, clinical and omics data, consumer data), setting (e.g., geospatial, environmental, provider-related data), and systems level (payer or regulatory data to characterize input, throughput, output, and outcomes of health care) to provide a comprehensive and continuous real-time assessment of biologic perturbations, individual behaviors, and context. Such care may contribute to a deeper understanding of health and disease and a more precise, personalized, predictive, and preventive care. 3) Data for research include open research data and data sharing, allowing one to appraise, benchmark, pool, replicate, and reuse data. Concerns and confidence into data-driven applications, stakeholders' and system's capabilities, and lack of data standardization and harmonization currently limit the development and implementation of data dentistry. Aspects of bias and data-user interaction require attention. Action items for the dental community circle around increasing data availability, refinement, and usage; demonstrating safety, value, and usefulness of applications; educating the dental workforce and consumers; providing performant and standardized infrastructure and processes; and incentivizing and adopting open data and data sharing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence (AI) can assist dentists in image assessment, for example, caries detection. The wider health and cost impact of employing AI for dental diagnostics has not yet been evaluated. We compared the cost-effectiveness of proximal caries detection on bitewing radiographs with versus without AI. U-Net, a fully convolutional neural network, had been trained, validated, and tested on 3,293, 252, and 141 bitewing radiographs, respectively, on which 4 experienced dentists had marked carious lesions (reference test). Lesions were stratified for initial lesions (E1/E2/D1, presumed noncavitated, receiving caries infiltration if detected) and advanced lesions (D2/D3, presumed cavitated, receiving restorative care if detected). A Markov model was used to simulate the consequences of true- and false-positive and true- and false-negative detections, as well as the subsequent decisions over the lifetime of patients. A German mixed-payers perspective was adopted. Our health outcome was tooth retention years. Costs were measured in 2020 euro. Monte-Carlo microsimulations and univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the cost-effectiveness acceptability at different willingness-to-pay thresholds were quantified. AI showed an accuracy of 0.80; dentists' mean accuracy was significantly lower at 0.71 (minimum–maximum: 0.61–0.78, P < 0.05). AI was significantly more sensitive than dentists (0.75 vs. 0.36 [0.19–0.65]; P = 0.006), while its specificity was not significantly lower (0.83 vs. 0.91 [0.69–0.98]; P > 0.05). In the base-case scenario, AI was more effective (tooth retention for a mean 64 [2.5%–97.5%: 61–65] y) and less costly (298 [244–367] euro) than assessment without AI (62 [59–64] y; 322 [257–394] euro). The ICER was −13.9 euro/y (i.e., AI saved money at higher effectiveness). In the majority (>77%) of all cases, AI was less costly and more effective. Applying AI for caries detection is likely to be cost-effective, mainly as fewer lesions remain undetected. Notably, this cost-effectiveness requires dentists to manage detected early lesions nonrestoratively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes were reported for carious primary molars treated with the Hall technique (HT) as compared with conventional carious tissue removal and restorations (i.e., conventional restoration [CR]) in a 5-y randomized controlled practice-based trial in Scotland. We interrogated this data set further to investigate the cost-effectiveness of HT versus CR. A total of 132 children who had 2 matched occlusal/occlusal-proximal carious lesions in primary molars ( n = 264 teeth) were randomly allocated to HT or CR, provided by 17 general dental practitioners. Molars were followed up for a mean 5 y. A societal perspective was taken for the economic analysis. Direct dental treatment costs were estimated from a Scottish NHS perspective (an NHS England perspective was taken for a sensitivity analysis). Initial, maintenance, and retreatment costs, including rerestorations, endodontic treatments, and extractions, were estimated with fee items. Indirect/opportunity costs were estimated with time and travel costs from a UK perspective. The primary outcome was tooth survival. Secondary outcomes included 1) not having pain or needing endodontic treatments/extractions and 2) not needing rerestorations. Cost-effectiveness and acceptability were estimated from bootstrapped samples. Significantly more molars in HT survived (99%, 95% CI: 98% to 100%) than in CR (92%; 87% to 97%). Also, the proportion of molars retained without pain or requiring endodontic treatment/extraction was significantly higher in HT than CR. In the base case analysis (NHS Scotland perspective), cumulative direct dental treatment costs (Great British pound [GBP]) of HT were 24 GBP (95% CI: 23 to 25); costs for CR were 29 (17 to 46). From an NHS England perspective, the cost advantage of HT (29 GBP; 95% CI: 25 to 34) over CR (107; 86 to 127) was more pronounced. Indirect/opportunity costs were significantly lower for HT (8 GBP; 95% CI: 7 to 9) than CR (19; 16 to 23). Total cumulative costs were significantly lower for HT (32 GBP; 95% CI: 31 to 34) than CR (49; 34 to 69). Based on a long-term practice-based trial, HT was more cost-effective than CR with HT retained for longer and experiencing less complications at lower costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The imbalanced nature of real-world datasets is an ongoing challenge in the field of machine and deep learning. In medicine and in dentistry, most data samples represent patients not affected by pathologies, and on imagery, pathologic image areas are often smaller than healthy ones. Selecting suitable loss functions during deep learning is essential and may help to overcome the resulting imbalance. We assessed six different loss functions for one exemplary task, tooth structure segmentation on bitewing radiographs, for their performance., Methods: Six different loss functions (Focal Loss, Dice Loss, Tversky Loss and hybrid losses of Cross-Entropy and Dice Loss, Focal and Dice Loss, Focal and Generalized Dice Loss) were compared on a tooth structure segmentation task of 1,625 bitewing radiographs. Training was performed using three different model architectures (U-Net, Linknet, DeepLavbV3+) over a 5-fold cross-validation. Tooth structures consisted of the classes (occurrence in% of samples/captures areas measured on pixel level) enamel (100 %/25 %), dentin (100 %/50 %), root canal (100 %/10 %), filling (81 %/8 %) and crown (28 %/5 %)., Results: Hybrid loss functions significantly outperformed standalone ones and provided robust results over the different architectures for the classes enamel, dentin, root canal and filling. Specifically, the Dice Focal loss reached high performance to conquer both image level and pixel level class imbalance, respectively., Clinical Significance: In dental use cases it is often important to predict minority classes such as pathologies accurately. Using specific loss function may be an effective strategy to overcome data imbalance when training deep learning models., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest FS and JK are co-founders of the startup dentalXrai GmbH. dentalXrai GmbH did not have any role in conceiving, conducting or reporting this study. The authors are solely responsible for the contents of this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Given the current state of medical artificial intelligence (AI) and perceptions towards it, collaborative systems are becoming the preferred choice for clinical workflows. This work aims to address expert interaction with medical AI support systems to gain insight towards how these systems can be better designed with the user in mind. As eye tracking metrics have been shown to be robust indicators of usability, we employ them for evaluating the usability and user interaction with medical AI support systems. We use expert gaze to assess experts' interaction with an AI software for caries detection in bitewing x-ray images. We compared standard viewing of bitewing images without AI support versus viewing where AI support could be freely toggled on and off. We found that experts turned the AI on for roughly 25% of the total inspection task, and generally turned it on halfway through the course of the inspection. Gaze behavior showed that when supported by AI, more attention was dedicated to user interface elements related to the AI support, with more frequent transitions from the image itself to these elements. When considering that expert visual strategy is already optimized for fast and effective image inspection, such interruptions in attention can lead to increased time needed for the overall assessment. Gaze analysis provided valuable insights into an AI's usability for medical image inspection. Further analyses of these tools and how to delineate metrical measures of usability should be developed., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Aim: To propose a framework for consistently applying the 2018 periodontal status classification scheme to epidemiological surveys (Application of the 2018 periodontal status Classification to Epidemiological Survey data, ACES)., Proposed Framework: We specified data requirements and workflows for either completed or planned epidemiological surveys, utilizing commonly collected measures of periodontal status (clinical attachment levels [CAL], probing depths, bleeding on probing), as well as additional necessary variables for the implementation of the 2018 periodontal status classification (tooth loss due to periodontitis and complexity factors). Following detailed instructions and flowcharts, survey participants are classified as having periodontal health, gingivitis or periodontitis. Rates of edentulism must also be reported. In cases of periodontitis, instructions on how to compute the stage and extent are provided. Assessment of grade can be derived from CAL measurements (or from radiographic alveolar bone loss data) in relation to root length and the participant's age., Conclusions: ACES is a framework to be used in epidemiological studies of periodontal status that (i) have been completed, and in which stage and grade according to the 2018 classification are inferred retroactively, or (ii) are being planned. Consistent use of the proposed comprehensive approach will facilitate the comparability of periodontitis prevalence estimates across studies., (© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Periodontology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

(1) Background: We aimed to identify factors associated with the presence of apical lesions (AL) in panoramic radiographs and to evaluate the predictive value of the identified factors. (2) Methodology: Panoramic radiographs from 1071 patients (age: 11-93 a, mean: 50.6 a ± 19.7 a) with 27,532 teeth were included. Each radiograph was independently assessed by five experienced dentists for AL. A range of shallow machine learning algorithms (logistic regression, k-nearest neighbor, decision tree, random forest, support vector machine, adaptive and gradient boosting) were employed to identify factors at both the patient and tooth level associated with AL and to predict AL. (3) Results: AL were detected in 522 patients (48.7%) and 1133 teeth (4.1%), whereas males showed a significantly higher prevalence than females (52.5%/44.8%; p < 0.05). Logistic regression found that an existing root canal treatment was the most important risk factor (adjusted Odds Ratio 16.89; 95% CI: 13.98-20.41), followed by the tooth type 'molar' (2.54; 2.1-3.08) and the restoration with a crown (2.1; 1.67-2.63). Associations between factors and AL were stronger and accuracy higher when using fewer complex models like decision tree (F1 score: 0.9 (0.89-0.9)). (4) Conclusions: The presence of AL was higher in root-canal treated teeth, those with crowns and molars. More complex machine learning models did not outperform less-complex ones.

Objective: Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to the ability of machines to perform cognitive and intellectual human tasks. In dentistry, AI offers the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy, improve patient outcomes and streamline workflows. The present study provides a framework and a checklist to evaluate AI applications in dentistry from this perspective., Methods: Lending from existing guidance documents, an initial draft of the checklist and an explanatory paper were derived and discussed among the groups members., Results: The checklist was consented to in an anonymous voting process by 29 Topic Group Dental Diagnostics and Digital Dentistry, ITU/WHO Focus Group AI on Health's members. Overall, 11 principles were identified (diversity, transparency, wellness, privacy protection, solidarity, equity, prudence, law and governance, sustainable development, accountability, and responsibility, respect of autonomy, decision-making)., Conclusions: Providers, patients, researchers, industry, and other stakeholders should consider these principles when developing, implementing, or receiving AI applications in dentistry., Clinical Significance: While AI has become increasingly commonplace in dentistry, there are ethical concerns around its usage, and users (providers, patients, and other stakeholders), as well as the industry should consider these when developing, implementing, or receiving AI applications based on comprehensive framework to address the associated ethical challenges., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Federated Learning (FL) enables collaborative training of artificial intelligence (AI) models from multiple data sources without directly sharing data. Due to the large amount of sensitive data in dentistry, FL may be particularly relevant for oral and dental research and applications. This study, for the first time, employed FL for a dental task, automated tooth segmentation on panoramic radiographs., Methods: We employed a dataset of 4,177 panoramic radiographs collected from nine different centers (n = 143 to n = 1881 per center) across the globe and used FL to train a machine learning model for tooth segmentation. FL performance was compared against Local Learning (LL), i.e., training models on isolated data from each center (assuming data sharing not to be an option). Further, the performance gap to Central Learning (CL), i.e., training on centrally pooled data (based on data sharing agreements) was quantified. Generalizability of models was evaluated on a pooled test dataset from all centers., Results: For 8 out of 9 centers, FL outperformed LL with statistical significance (p<0.05); only the center providing the largest amount of data FL did not have such an advantage. For generalizability, FL outperformed LL across all centers. CL surpassed both FL and LL for performance and generalizability., Conclusion: If data pooling (for CL) is not feasible, FL is shown to be a useful alternative to train performant and, more importantly, generalizable deep learning models in dentistry, where data protection barriers are high., Clinical Significance: This study proves the validity and utility of FL in the field of dentistry, which encourages researchers to adopt this method to improve the generalizability of dental AI models and ease their transition to the clinical environment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest FS and JK are co-founders of the dentalXrai Ltd., a startup focused on deep learning for radiograph analysis. dentalXrai Ltd. did not have any role in conceiving, conducting or reporting this study., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objectives: Understanding dentists' gaze patterns on radiographs may allow to unravel sources of their limited accuracy and develop strategies to mitigate them. We conducted an eye tracking experiment to characterize dentists' scanpaths and thus their gaze patterns when assessing bitewing radiographs to detect primary proximal carious lesions., Methods: 22 dentists assessed a median of nine bitewing images each, resulting in 170 datasets after excluding data with poor quality of gaze recording. Fixation was defined as an area of attentional focus related to visual stimuli. We calculated time to first fixation, fixation count, average fixation duration, and fixation frequency. Analyses were performed for the entire image and stratified by (1) presence of carious lesions and/or restorations and (2) lesion depth (E1/2: outer/inner enamel; D1-3: outer-inner third of dentin). We also examined the transitional nature of the dentists' gaze., Results: Dentists had more fixations on teeth with lesions and/or restorations (median=138 [interquartile range=87, 204]) than teeth without them (32 [15, 66]), p<0.001. Notably, teeth with lesions had longer fixation durations (407 milliseconds [242, 591]) than those with restorations (289 milliseconds [216, 337]), p<0.001. Time to first fixation was longer for teeth with E1 lesions (17,128 milliseconds [8813, 21,540]) than lesions of other depths (p = 0.049). The highest number of fixations were on teeth with D2 lesions (43 [20, 51]) and lowest on teeth with E1 lesions (5 [1, 37]), p<0.001. Generally, a systematic tooth-by-tooth gaze pattern was observed., Conclusions: As hypothesized, while visually inspecting bitewing radiographic images, dentists employed a heightened focus on certain image features/areas, relevant to the assigned task. Also, they generally examined the entire image in a systematic tooth-by-tooth pattern., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in dentistry is rapidly evolving and could play a major role in a variety of dental fields. This study assessed patients' perceptions and expectations regarding AI use in dentistry. An 18-item questionnaire survey focused on demographics, expectancy, accountability, trust, interaction, advantages and disadvantages was responded to by 330 patients; 265 completed questionnaires were included in this study. Frequencies and differences between age groups were analysed using a two-sided chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests with Monte Carlo approximation. Patients' perceived top three disadvantages of AI use in dentistry were (1) the impact on workforce needs (37.7%), (2) new challenges on doctor-patient relationships (36.2%) and (3) increased dental care costs (31.7%). Major expected advantages were improved diagnostic confidence (60.8%), time reduction (48.3%) and more personalised and evidencebased disease management (43.0%). Most patients expected AI to be part of the dental workflow in 1-5 (42.3%) or 5-10 (46.8%) years. Older patients (> 35 years) expected higher AI performance standards than younger patients (18-35 years) (p < 0.05). Overall, patients showed a positive attitude towards AI in dentistry. Understanding patients' perceptions may allow professionals to shape AI-driven dentistry in the future., (© 2023. The Author(s).)