4.2 Article

The ADEPT study: a comparative study of dentists' ability to detect enamel-only proximal caries in bitewing radiographs with and without the use of AssistDent artificial intelligence software

期刊

BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL
卷 231, 期 8, 页码 481-485

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41415-021-3526-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the use of AssistDent AI software significantly improves dentists' ability to detect enamel-only proximal caries, with a higher sensitivity in identifying potential carious lesions, despite an increase in misdiagnosis on healthy surfaces.
Introduction Reversal of enamel-only proximal caries by non-invasive treatments is important in preventive dentistry. However, detecting such caries using bitewing radiography is difficult and the subtle patterns are often missed by dental practitioners. Aims To investigate whether the ability of dentists to detect enamel-only proximal caries is enhanced by the use of AssistDent artificial intelligence (AI) software. Materials and methods In the ADEPT (AssistDent Enamel-only Proximal caries assessmenT) study, 23 dentists were randomly divided into a control arm, without AI assistance, and an experimental arm, in which AI assistance provided on-screen prompts indicating potential enamel-only proximal caries. All participants analysed a set of 24 bitewings in which an expert panel had previously identified 65 enamel-only carious lesions and 241 healthy proximal surfaces. Results The control group found 44.3% of the caries, whereas the experimental group found 75.8%. The experimental group incorrectly identified caries in 14.6% of the healthy surfaces compared to 3.7% in the control group. The increase in sensitivity of 71% and decrease in specificity of 11% are statistically significant (p <0.01). Conclusions AssistDent AI software significantly improves dentists' ability to detect enamel-only proximal caries and could be considered as a tool to support preventive dentistry in general practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据