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.
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.