| Literature DB >> 35885796 |
Andrej Thurzo1,2, Wanda Urbanová3, Bohuslav Novák1, Ladislav Czako4, Tomáš Siebert5, Peter Stano1, Simona Mareková1, Georgia Fountoulaki1, Helena Kosnáčová2,6, Ivan Varga7.
Abstract
This literature research had two main objectives. The first objective was to quantify how frequently artificial intelligence (AI) was utilized in dental literature from 2011 until 2021. The second objective was to distinguish the focus of such publications; in particular, dental field and topic. The main inclusion criterium was an original article or review in English focused on dental utilization of AI. All other types of publications or non-dental or non-AI-focused were excluded. The information sources were Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, queried on 19 April 2022. The search string was "artificial intelligence" AND (dental OR dentistry OR tooth OR teeth OR dentofacial OR maxillofacial OR orofacial OR orthodontics OR endodontics OR periodontics OR prosthodontics). Following the removal of duplicates, all remaining publications were returned by searches and were screened by three independent operators to minimize the risk of bias. The analysis of 2011-2021 publications identified 4413 records, from which 1497 were finally selected and calculated according to the year of publication. The results confirmed a historically unprecedented boom in AI dental publications, with an average increase of 21.6% per year over the last decade and a 34.9% increase per year over the last 5 years. In the achievement of the second objective, qualitative assessment of dental AI publications since 2021 identified 1717 records, with 497 papers finally selected. The results of this assessment indicated the relative proportions of focal topics, as follows: radiology 26.36%, orthodontics 18.31%, general scope 17.10%, restorative 12.09%, surgery 11.87% and education 5.63%. The review confirms that the current use of artificial intelligence in dentistry is concentrated mainly around the evaluation of digital diagnostic methods, especially radiology; however, its implementation is expected to gradually penetrate all parts of the profession.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; deep learning; dentistry; endodontics; evidence-based practice; forensic odontology; maxillofacial surgery; orthodontics; periodontics; prosthodontics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885796 PMCID: PMC9320442 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10071269
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1Visualization of 1st, 2nd and current 3rd waves of AI generations (booms) in human history does not correspond to the history of Google Scholar dental-AI publications, thus indicating that only the current 3rd AI generation is mature enough to offer undisputed potential for research and application in dentistry. Visualized prediction for the next decade of dental AI publications was calculated by simple extrapolation using a linear regression, and is just for illustration.
Figure 2General AI categorization defines three types: artificial narrow intelligence (ANI), artificial general intelligence (AGI), and artificial super intelligence (ASI).
Review protocol, compliant with PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review Protocols 1.
| Methods | Item No. | Checklist Item |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility criteria | 8 | Only original articles and reviews in English covering dental topics with objective AI utilization were eligible. Quantitative assessment of dental AI publications 2011–2021. Qualitative assessment of the current literature from 2021 until present. |
| Information sources | 9 | Only the following four electronic databases were queried on 19 April 2022: PubMed Scopus Web of Science—Core Collection Google Scholar |
| Search strategy | 10 | PubMed, web search: |
| Study records: | ||
| Data management | 11a | Search and batch export with software: Harzing’s “Publish or Perish” ( |
| Selection process | 11b | Three independent reviewers conducted each phase of the review. |
| Data collection process | 11c | As the first objective was solely quantitative, the need to extract data from reports was valid only for the second qualitative objective. |
| Data items | 12 | All 22 qualitative variables included five interdisciplinary groups of papers (# 4,5,6,8,9). |
| Outcomes and prioritization | 13 | The primary outcome of the 1st objective was the list of selected publications for each year. |
| Risk of bias in individual studies | 14 | Each eligible study was evaluated independently by three reviewers. To minimize risk of bias of individual studies, only the studies truly dealing with AI implementation were included. As a number of discrepancies occurred between the three independent reviewers, further tools used to assess the risk of bias in the systematic review were considered. Each initial disagreement was noted. |
| Data synthesis | 15a | The 1st objective provided a list of selected papers. These were grouped according to their publication year and their topics summarized for each year. Percentual increments per year were calculated. |
| 15b | For simplicity, no combining of data from other studies was planned. | |
| 15c | No other additional analyses were proposed (such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, or meta-regression). | |
| 15d | If quantitative synthesis was not appropriate, a systematic narrative synthesis was provided with information presented in the text and tables to summarize and explain the impact of included studies. | |
| Meta-bias(es) | 16 | The weight of each study included was equivalent. Overall, the selective reporting of study results (and the failure to publish small or nonsignificant results) leads to the overestimation of intervention effects in systematic reviews, a phenomenon called meta-bias. |
| Confidence in cumulative evidence | 17 | For the simplicity of this review design, only a “summary of findings” tables are included with a summary of the amount of evidence, in accordance with the GRADE framework (GRADE Working Group, 2004; Guyatt et al. [ |
1 Acknowledgement to Statement paper by Moher et al. [71] and Explanation and Elaboration paper by Shamseer et al. [70].
Figure 3Objective 1: the number of dental publications focused on AI utilization. The PRISMA flow chart diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of the systematic review for the first objective.
Figure 4Annual counts of AI-focused dental publications (2011–2021).
Results of synthesis of annual publication counts of AI-focused dental publications from various electronic databases, contrasting registered and finally included series of publications with percentual annual increase evaluation.
| Year | PubMed | Scopus 1 | WOS 1 | Google Scholar | Registered | Included | Increase |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 4 | 18 | 0 | 107 | 129 | 55 | |
| 2012 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 130 | 149 | 60 | +9.09% |
| 2013 | 14 | 24 | 2 | 136 | 166 | 66 | +10.00% |
| 2014 | 11 | 14 | 0 | 133 | 168 | 68 | +3.03% |
| 2015 | 11 | 27 | 0 | 144 | 182 | 72 | +5.88% |
| 2016 | 13 | 24 | 3 | 189 | 229 | 82 | +13.89% |
| 2017 | 5 | 23 | 1 | 252 | 281 | 101 | +23.17% |
| 2018 | 37 | 34 | 5 | 310 | 386 | 139 | +37.62% |
| 2019 | 83 | 59 | 24 | 435 | 601 | 201 | +44.60% |
| 2020 | 229 | 107 | 60 | 460 | 856 | 291 | +44.78% |
| 2021 | 407 | 250 | 119 | 490 | 1266 | 362 | +24.40% |
1 Limited to Dentistry.
Figure 5The PRISMA flow chart diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. It maps out the number of records identified, included, and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions. Different templates are available depending on the type of review (new or updated) and sources used to identify studies.
Results of synthesis for AI-focused dental papers (1 January 2021–19 April 2022) included for qualitative assessment.
| Year. | PubMed | Scopus 1 | WOS 1 | Google Scholar | Registered | Included |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 39 | 85 | 23 | 304 | 451 | 135 |
| 2021 | 407 | 250 | 119 | 490 | 1266 | 362 |
1 Limited to Dentistry.
Figure 6Simplified pie graph visualizing proportionality of current AI focus in dentistry (1 January 2021–19 April 2022), where the focus on implants and cancer treatment is covered by Surgery, and Restorative dentistry also covers Endodontics and Prosthodontics. * Restorative dentistry in this chart covers also Endodontics and Pediatric dentistry. ** Surgery represents also Cancer diagnostics and Dental implantology.
Figure 7Venn diagram illustrating where dental AI use is currently focused, with relationships among the groups.
Results of synthesis with qualitative variables (22) for classification of included recent studies.
| # | Focus in (Topic/Specialty) | Amount | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GENERAL SCOPE ON DENTISTRY | 85 | 17.10% |
| 2 | EDUCATION IN DENTISTRY | 28 | 5.63% |
| 3 | RADIOLOGY AND IMAGING DIAGNOSTICS | 101 | 20.32% |
| 4 |
| 6 | 1.21% |
| 5 |
| 16 | 3.22% |
| 6 |
| 8 | 1.61% |
| 7 | ORTHODONTICS | 72 | 14.49% |
| 8 |
| 10 | 2.01% |
| 9 |
| 9 | 1.81% |
| 10 | SURGERY (MAXILLOFACIAL) | 17 | 3.42% |
| 11 | CANCER DIAGNOSTICS | 19 | 3.82% |
| 12 | DENTAL IMPLANTS | 23 | 4.63% |
| 13 | RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY incl. CARIES DIAG. | 39 | 7.85% |
| 14 | RESTORATIVE PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY | 7 | 1.41% |
| 15 | PERIODONTOLOGY | 12 | 2.41% |
| 16 | ENDODONTICS | 14 | 2.82% |
| 17 | FORENSIC DENTISTRY | 11 | 2.21% |
| 18 | PROSTHODONTICS | 8 | 1.61% |
| 19 | DSD | 5 | 1.01% |
| 20 | REGENERATIVE DENTISTRY | 3 | 0.60% |
| 21 | AIRWAY | 2 | 0.40% |
| 22 | DENTAL MATERIAL RESEARCH | 2 | 0.40% |
1 Five interdisciplinary “focus groups” for papers with focus balanced between two classifications (# 4,5,6,8,9).
The most impactful AI publications in dentistry.
| Title | Author | Journal | Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Detection and diagnosis of dental caries using a deep learning-based convolutional neural network algorithm [ | Lee, Jae-Hong; et al. | JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY | 2018 |
| Diagnosis and prediction of periodontally compromised teeth using a deep learning-based convolutional neural network algorithm [ | Lee, Jae-Hong; et al. | JOURNAL OF PERIODONTAL AND IMPLANT SCIENCE | 2018 |
| Deep Learning for the Radiographic Detection of Apical Lesions [ | Ekert, Thomas; et al. | JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS | 2019 |
| Convolutional neural networks for dental image diagnostics: A scoping review [ | Schwendicke, Falk; et al. | JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY | 2019 |
| Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: Chances and Challenges [ | Schwendicke, F.; et al. | JOURNAL OF DENTAL | 2020 |
| An overview of deep learning in the field of dentistry [ | Hwang, Jae-Joon; et al. | IMAGING SCIENCE IN | 2019 |
| Deep learning in medical image analysis: A third eye for doctors [ | Fourcade, A.; Khonsari, R. H. | JOURNAL OF STOMATOLOGY ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY | 2019 |
| A deep-learning artificial intelligence system for assessment of root morphology of the mandibular first molar on panoramic radiography [ | Hiraiwa, Teruhiko; et al. | DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL | 2019 |
| Deep-learning classification using convolutional neural network for evaluation of maxillary sinusitis on panoramic radiography [ | Murata, Makoto; et al. | ORAL RADIOLOGY | 2019 |
| Staging and grading of oral squamous cell carcinoma: An update [ | Almangush, Alhadi; et al. | ORAL ONCOLOGY | 2020 |