| Literature DB >> 35626185 |
Shankargouda Patil1, Sarah Albogami2, Jagadish Hosmani3, Sheetal Mujoo4, Mona Awad Kamil5, Manawar Ahmad Mansour6, Hina Naim Abdul6, Shilpa Bhandi7, Shiek S S J Ahmed8.
Abstract
Background: Machine learning (ML) is a key component of artificial intelligence (AI). The terms machine learning, artificial intelligence, and deep learning are erroneously used interchangeably as they appear as monolithic nebulous entities. This technology offers immense possibilities and opportunities to advance diagnostics in the field of medicine and dentistry. This necessitates a deep understanding of AI and its essential components, such as machine learning (ML), artificial neural networks (ANN), and deep learning (DP). Aim: This review aims to enlighten clinicians regarding AI and its applications in the diagnosis of oral diseases, along with the prospects and challenges involved. Review results: AI has been used in the diagnosis of various oral diseases, such as dental caries, maxillary sinus diseases, periodontal diseases, salivary gland diseases, TMJ disorders, and oral cancer through clinical data and diagnostic images. Larger data sets would enable AI to predict the occurrence of precancerous conditions. They can aid in population-wide surveillance and decide on referrals to specialists. AI can efficiently detect microfeatures beyond the human eye and augment its predictive power in critical diagnosis.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; artificial neural network; deep learning; diagnosis; machine learning; oral diseases
Year: 2022 PMID: 35626185 PMCID: PMC9139975 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12051029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Important milestones in the advancement of AI.
Figure 2The working of AI in a schematic format.
Summary of studies examining the use of artificial intelligence in dental diagnosis.
| Study | Algorithm Used | Study Factor | Modality | Number of Input Data | Performance | Comparison | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee J et al. (2018) [ | CNN | Dental caries | Periapical radiographs | 600 | Mean AUC—0.890 | 4 Dentists | Deep CNN showed a considerably good performance in detecting dental caries in periapical radiographs. |
| Casalegno et al. (2019) [ | CNN | Dental caries | Near-infrared transillumination imaging | 217 | ROC of 83.6% for occlusal caries; ROC of 84.6% for proximal caries | Dentists with clinical experience | CNN showed increased speed and accuracy in detecting dental caries |
| Cantu et al. (2019) [ | CNN | Dental caries | Bitewing radiographs | 141 | Accuracy 0.80; sensitivity 0.75%; specificity 0.83%; | 4 experienced dentists | AI model was more accurate than dentists |
| Radke et al. (2003) [ | ANN | Disk displacement | Frontal plane jaw recordings from chewing | 68 | Accuracy 86.8%, specificity 100%, sensitivity 91.8% | None | The proposed model has an acceptable level of error and an excellent cost/benefit ratio. |
| Park YH et al. (2021) [ | ML | Early childhood caries | Demographic details, oral hygiene management details, maternal details | 4195 | AUROC between 0.774 and 0.785 | Traditional regression model | Both ML-based and traditional regression models showed favorable performance and can be used as a supporting tool. |
| Kuwana et al. (2021) [ | CNN | Maxillary sinus lesions | Panoramic radiographs | 1174 | Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 90–91%, 81–85% and 91–96% for maxillary sinusitis and 97–100%, 80–100% and 100% for maxillary sinus cysts. | None | The proposed deep learning model can be reliably used for detecting the maxillary sinuses and identifying lesions in them. |
| Murata et al. (2018) [ | CNN | Maxillary sinusitis | Panoramic radiographs | 120 | Accuracy 87.5%; sensitivity 86.7%; specificity 88.3% | 2 experienced radiologists, 2 dental residents | The AI model can be a supporting tool for inexperienced dentists |
| Kim et al. (2019) [ | CNN | Maxillary sinusitis | Water’s view radiographs | 200 | AUC of 0.93 for temporal; AUC of 0.88 for geographic external | 5 radiologists | the AI-based model showed statistically higher performance than radiologists. |
| Hung KF et al. (2022) [ | CNN | maxillary sinusitis | Cone-beam computed tomography | 890 | AUC for detection of mucosal thickening and mucous retention cyst was 0.91 and 0.84 in low dose, and 0.89 and 0.93 for high dose | None | The proposed model can accurately detect mucosal thickening and mucous retention cysts in both low and high-dose protocol CBCT scans. |
| Danks et al. (2021) [ | DNN symmetric hourglass architecture | Periodontal bone loss | Periapical radiographs | 340 | Percentage Correct Keypoints of 83.3% across all root morphologies | Asymmetric hourglass architecture, Resnet | The proposed system showed promising capability in localizing landmarks and periodontal bone loss and performed 1.7% better than the next best architecture. |
| Chang et al. (2020) [ | CNN | Periodontal bone loss | Panoramic radiographs | 340 | Pixel accuracy of 0.93; Jaccard index of 0.92; dice coefficient values of 0.88 for localization of periodontal bone. | None | The proposed model showed high accuracy and excellent reliability in the detection of periodontal bone loss and classification of periodontitis |
| Ozden et al. (2015) [ | ANN | Periodontal disease | Risk factors, periodontal data, and radiographic bone loss | 150 | Performance of SVM & DT was 98%; ANN was 46% | SVM &DT | SVM and DT showed good performance in the classification of periodontal disease while ANN had the worst performance |
| Devito et al. (2008) [ | ANN | Proximal caries | Bitewing radiograph | 160 | ROC curve area of 0.884 | 25 examiners | ANN could improve the performance of diagnosing proximal caries. |
| Dar-Odeh et al. (2010) [ | ANN | Recurrent aphthous ulcers | Predisposing factor and RAU status | 96 | Accuracy of prediction for network 3 & 8 is 90%; 4,6 & 9 is 80%; 1& 7 is 70%; 2 & 5 is 60% | None | the ANN model seemed to use gender, hematologic and mycologic data, tooth brushing, fruit, and vegetable consumption for the prediction of RAU. |
| Hung M et al. (2019) [ | CNN | Root caries | Data set | 5135 | Accuracy 97.1%; Precision 95.1%; sensitivity 99.6%; specificity 94.3% | Trained medical personnel | Shows good performance and can be clinically implemented. |
| Iwasaki et al. (2015) [ | BBN | Temporomandibular disorders | Magnetic resonance imaging | 590 | Of the 11 BBN algorithms used path conditions using resubstitution validation and 10—fold cross-validation showed an accuracy of >99% | necessary path condition, path condition, greedy search-and-score with Bayesian information criterion, Chow-Liu tree, Rebane-Pearl poly tree, tree augmented naïve Bayes model, maximum log-likelihood, Akaike information criterion, minimum description length, K2 and C4.5 | The proposed model can be used to predict the prognosis of TMDs. |
| Orhan et al. (2021) [ | ML | Temporomandibular disorders | Magnetic resonance imaging | 214 | The performance accuracy for condylar changes and disk displacement are 0.77 and 0.74 | logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), decision tree (DT), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), XGBoost, and support vector machine (SVM) | The proposed model using KNN and RF was found to be optimal for predicting TMJ pathologies |
| Diniz de lima et al. (2021) [ | ML | Temporomandibular disorders | Infrared thermography | 74 | Semantic and radiomic-semantic associated ML feature extraction methods and MLP classifier showed statistically good performance in detecting TMDs | KNN, SVM, MLP | ML model associated with infrared thermography can be used for the detection of TMJ pathologies |
| Bas B et al. (2012) [ | ANN | TMJ internal derangements | Clinical symptoms and diagnoses | 219 | Sensitivity and specificity for unilateral and anterior disk displacement with and without reduction were 80% & 95% and 69% & 91%; for bilateral and anterior disk displacement with and without reduction were 37% &100% and 100% & 89% respectively. | Experienced surgeon | The developed model can be used as a supportive diagnostic tool for the diagnoses of subtypes of TMJ internal derangements |
| Choi et al. (2021) [ | CNN | TMJ osteoarthritis | Panoramic radiographs | 1189 | Accuracy of 0.78, the sensitivity of 0.73, and specificity of 0.82 | Oral and maxillofacial radiologist | The developed model showed performance equivalent to experts and can be used in general practices where OMFR experts or CT is n |
| Fukuda et al. (2019) [ | CNN | Vertical root fracture | Panoramic radiograph | 60 | The precision of 0.93; Recall of 0.75 | 2 Radiologists and 1 Endodontist | The CNN model was a promising supportive tool for the detection of vertical root fracture. |
Summary of studies examining the use of artificial intelligence in cancer diagnosis.
| Study | Algorithm Used | Study Factor | Modality | Number of Input Data | Performance | Comparison | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ariji et al. (2019) [ | CNN | Extra-nodal extension of cervical lymph node | CT images | 703 | Accuracy of 84% | 4 radiologists | The diagnostic performance of the DL model was significantly higher than the radiologists |
| Lopez—Janeiro et al. (2022) [ | ML | Malignant salivary gland tumor | Primary tumor resection specimens | 115 | 84–89% of the samples were diagnosed correctly | None | The developed model can be used as a guide for the morphological approach to the diagnosis of malignant salivary gland tumors |
| Felice et al. (2021) [ | Decision tree | Malignant salivary gland tumor | Age at diagnosis, gender, salivary gland type, histologic type, surgical margin, tumor stage, node stage, lymphovascular invasion/perineural invasion, type of adjuvant treatment | 54 | 5-year disease-free survival was 62.1%. Important variables to predict recurrence were pathological tumor and node stage. Based on the variables, 3 groups were partitioned as pN0, pT1-2 pN+ and PT3-4 pN+ with 26%, 38% and 75% of recurrence and 73.7%, 57.1% and 34.3% disease-free survival rate, respectively | None | The proposed model can be used to classify patients with salivary gland malignancy and predict the recurrence rate. |
| Ariji et al. (2019) [ | CNN | Metastasis of cervical lymph nodes | CT images | 441 | Accuracy 78.2%; sensitivity 75.4%; specificity 81.1% | not clear | The diagnostic performance of the CNN model is similar to that of radiologists |
| Nayak et al. (2005) [ | ANN | Normal, premalignant and malignant conditions | Pulsed laser-induced autofluorescence spectroscopic studies | Not clear | Specificity and sensitivity were 100% and 96.5% | Principal component analysis | ANN showed better performance compared to PCA in the classification of normal, premalignant, and malignant conditions |
| Shams et al. (2017) [ | DNN | Oral cancer | Gene expression profiling | 86 | Accuracy of 96% | support vector machine (SVM), Regularized Least Squares (RLS), multi-layer perceptron (MLP) with backpropagation | The proposed system showed significantly higher performance, which can be easily implemented |
| Jeyaraj et al. (2019) [ | CNN | Oral cancer | Hyperspectral images | 600 | Accuracy of 91.4% for benign tissue and 94.5% for normal tissue | Support vector machine and Deep belief network | The proposed method can be deployed for the automatic classification of |
| Aubreville et al. (2017) [ | CNN | oral squamous cell carcinoma | Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) images | 7894 | AUC 0.96; Mean accuracy sensitivity 86.6%; specificity 90%; | not clear | This method seemed better than the state-of-the-art CLE recognition system |
| Uthoff et al. (2018) [ | CNN | Precancerous and cancerous lesions | Autofluorescence and white light imaging | 170 | sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values ranging from 81.25 to 94.94% | None | The proposed model is a low-cost, portable, and easy-to-use system. |