Artificial intelligence for detecting periapical radiolucencies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Dentists' diagnostic accuracy in detecting periapical radiolucency varies considerably. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for detecting periapical radiolucency.

Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy and utilizing AI for periapical radiolucency detection, published until November 2023, were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis was conducted using the online MetaDTA Tool to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity. Risk of bias was evaluated using QUADAS-2.

A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore databases. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy and utilizing AI tools for periapical radiolucency detection, published until November 2023, were eligible for inclusion.

We identified 210 articles, of which 24 met the criteria for inclusion in the review. All but one study used one type of convolutional neural network. The body of evidence comes with an overall unclear to high risk of bias and several applicability concerns. Four of the twenty-four studies were included in a meta-analysis. AI showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.94 (95 % CI = 0.90-0.96) and 0.96 (95 % CI = 0.91-0.98), respectively.

AI demonstrated high specificity and sensitivity for detecting periapical radiolucencies. However, the current landscape suggests a need for diverse study designs beyond traditional diagnostic accuracy studies. Prospective real-life randomized controlled trials using heterogeneous data are needed to demonstrate the true value of AI.

Artificial intelligence tools seem to have the potential to support detecting periapical radiolucencies on imagery. Notably, nearly all studies did not test fully fledged software systems but measured the mere accuracy of AI models in diagnostic accuracy studies. The true value of currently available AI-based software for lesion detection on both 2D and 3D radiographs remains uncertain.