Back

AI-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems for Secondary Caries on Bitewings: A Multi-Algorithm Comparison

Chaves, E. T.; Teunis, J. T.; Digmayer Romero, V. H.; van Nistelrooij, N.; Vinayahalingam, S.; Sezen-Hulsmans, D.; Mendes, F. M.; Huysmans, M.-C.; Cenci, M. S.; Lima, G. d. S.

2026-04-25 dentistry and oral medicine
10.64898/2026.04.17.26350883 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Radiographic detection of caries lesions adjacent to restorations is challenging due to limitations of two-dimensional imaging and difficulties distinguishing true lesions from restorative or anatomical radiolucencies. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have been introduced to assist radiographic interpretation; however, different AI tools may yield variable diagnostic outputs, and their comparative performance remains unclear. Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance of commercial and experimental AI algorithms for detecting secondary caries lesions on bitewings. Methods: This cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study included 200 anonymized bitewings comprising 885 restored tooth surfaces. A consensus group reference standard identified all surfaces with a caries lesion and classified each lesion by type (primary/secondary) and depth (enamel-only/dentin-involved). Five commercial (Second Opinion, CranioCatch, Diagnocat, DIO Inteligencia, and Align X-ray Insights) and three experimental (Mask R-CNN-based and Mask DINO-based) systems were tested. Diagnostic performance was expressed through sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy (95% CI). Comparisons used generalized estimating equations, adjusted for clustered data. Results: Specificity was high across all systems (0.957-0.986), confirming accurate recognition of non-carious surfaces, whereas sensitivity was moderate (0.327-0.487), reflecting frequent missed detections of enamel and dentin lesions. Accuracy ranged from 0.882 to 0.917, with no significant differences among models (p >= 0.05). Confounding factors, such as radiographic overlapping, marginal restoration defects, and cervical artifacts, were the main sources of misclassification. Conclusions: AI algorithms, regardless of architecture or commercial status, showed similar diagnostic capabilities and a conservative detection profile, favoring specificity over sensitivity. Improvements in dataset diversity, labeling precision, and explainability may further enhance reliability for secondary caries detection. Clinical Significance: AI-based CDSSs assist clinicians by providing consistent detection. Their high specificity is particularly valuable in minimizing unnecessary invasive treatments (overtreatment), though they should be used as adjuncts rather than a replacement for expert judgment.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.8%
2
Journal of Dental Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.2%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.7%
4
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.7%
50% of probability mass above
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 15%
6.7%
6
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
7
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 30%
2.9%
8
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.2%
9
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
10
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.2%
11
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
12
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
13
BioMed Research International
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
14
Journal of Medical Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
15
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
16
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.3%
17
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
18
Biomolecules
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
20
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
21
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.5%