Question · asked by 1 review

AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard): Sensitivity

Population
Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)
Intervention
AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test
Comparison
Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)
Outcome
Sensitivity

AI algorithms have high pooled sensitivity (0.85) for detecting dental caries; ungraded, with very high heterogeneity (I2>95%) and evidence of publication bias.

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)
Sensitivity · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities) · Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy (index test vs reference standard), Dental imaging: intraoral photographs, periapical, bitewing, panoramic radiographs, CBCT, near-infrared transillumination, Overall (all imaging modalities pooled)
AI algorithms have high pooled sensitivity (0.85) for detecting dental caries; ungraded, with very high heterogeneity (I2>95%) and evidence of publication bias.
Examining the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence for detecting dental caries across a range of… (2025) All outcomes
Sensitivity 0.85 [0.83, 0.93]20 studies · 29423 participantsGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

Studies behind the findings

The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.