Artificial intelligence - can it be used to outsmart oral cancer?

Applying artificial intelligence to detect and analyse oral and maxillofacial bone loss-A scoping review

Radiographic evaluation of bone changes is one of the main tools in the diagnosis of many oral and maxillofacial diseases. However, this approach to assessment has limitations in accuracy, inconsistency and comparatively low diagnostic efficiency. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithms like deep learning networks have been introduced as a solution to overcome these challenges. Based on recent studies, AI can improve the detection accuracy of an expert clinician for periapical pathology, periodontal diseases and their prognostication, as well as peri-implant bone loss. Also, AI has been successfully used to detect and diagnose oral and maxillofacial lesions with a high predictive value. This study aims to review the current evidence on artificial intelligence applications in the detection and analysis of bone loss in the oral and maxillofacial regions.

Oral cancer knowledge, attitudes, and practices among senior dental students in Yemen: a multi-institution study

BACKGROUND

The "Knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP)" approach is crucial in health system. Appreciating the current KAP status will reveal the extent of the efficiency of applied health strategies, and subsequently help to determine the appropriate health policy to be employed for improving the health indicators of a given disease/condition, including Oral Cancer (OC). This large-scale cross-sectional study aimed to assess knowledge, attitude, and practice on OC among senior dental students in Yemen.

METHODS

A pre-validated online questionnaire was used for data collection. It consisted of a series of close-ended questions on knowledge, attitudes and practices related to OC. Yemeni dental students in clinical levels (4th and 5th years) from nine dental schools based in four major cities were invited to complete the survey. The SPSS Version 28.0 was used for data analysis. Differences by different grouping factors were assessed by Chi-squared and Mann Whitney-U tests, as appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 927 students completed the questionnaire: a response rate of 43%. While the majority identified smoking (93.8%), and smokeless tobacco (92.1%) as potential risk factors of OC, only 76.2% recognized sun exposure as a risk factor for lip cancer and only 50% were aware of old age as a risk factor of OC. Regarding clinical signs of OC, 84.1% reported that OC can present as non-healing ulcer, but only two thirds of the participants recognized that OC can present as a white and/or red lesion. With respect to practices, although 92.1% reported asking their patients regarding oral habits, only 78% reported they regularly carry out a soft tissue examination. Only 54.5% of the participants considered themselves to be well-trained to provide smoking cessation advice, and 21% were confident regarding their knowledge on OC. The 5th year students showed significantly better knowledge and practices than the 4th year students did (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The study suggests significant gaps in knowledge, attitudes, and practices of senior dental students in Yemen regarding OC. The findings also underscore the urgent need to improve OC teaching and training of undergraduate dental students, and to provide periodic well-structured continuing professional development activities for dental professionals.

Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Cephalometric Landmarks: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Using computer vision through artificial intelligence (AI) is one of the main technological advances in dentistry. However, the existing literature on the practical application of AI for detecting cephalometric landmarks of orthodontic interest in digital images is heterogeneous, and there is no consensus regarding accuracy and precision. Thus, this review evaluated the use of artificial intelligence for detecting cephalometric landmarks in digital imaging examinations and compared it to manual annotation of landmarks. An electronic search was performed in nine databases to find studies that analyzed the detection of cephalometric landmarks in digital imaging examinations with AI and manual landmarking. Two reviewers selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias using QUADAS-2. Random-effects meta-analyses determined the agreement and precision of AI compared to manual detection at a 95% confidence interval. The electronic search located 7410 studies, of which 40 were included. Only three studies presented a low risk of bias for all domains evaluated. The meta-analysis showed AI agreement rates of 79% (95% CI: 76-82%, I2 = 99%) and 90% (95% CI: 87-92%, I2 = 99%) for the thresholds of 2 and 3 mm, respectively, with a mean divergence of 2.05 (95% CI: 1.41-2.69, I2 = 10%) compared to manual landmarking. The menton cephalometric landmark showed the lowest divergence between both methods (SMD, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.82; 1.53; I2 = 0%). Based on very low certainty of evidence, the application of AI was promising for automatically detecting cephalometric landmarks, but further studies should focus on testing its strength and validity in different samples.

Automatic Segmentation of Teeth, Crown-Bridge Restorations, Dental Implants, Restorative Fillings, Dental Caries, Residual Roots, and Root Canal Fillings on Orthopantomographs: Convenience and Pitfalls

BACKGROUND

The aim of our study is to provide successful automatic segmentation of various objects on orthopantomographs (OPGs).

METHODS

8138 OPGs obtained from the archives of the Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology were included. OPGs were converted into PNGs and transferred to the segmentation tool's database. All teeth, crown-bridge restorations, dental implants, composite-amalgam fillings, dental caries, residual roots, and root canal fillings were manually segmented by two experts with the manual drawing semantic segmentation technique.

RESULTS

The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for both inter- and intra-observers for manual segmentation was excellent (ICC > 0.75). The intra-observer ICC was found to be 0.994, while the inter-observer reliability was 0.989. No significant difference was detected amongst observers (p = 0.947). The calculated DSC and accuracy values across all OPGs were 0.85 and 0.95 for the tooth segmentation, 0.88 and 0.99 for dental caries, 0.87 and 0.99 for dental restorations, 0.93 and 0.99 for crown-bridge restorations, 0.94 and 0.99 for dental implants, 0.78 and 0.99 for root canal fillings, and 0.78 and 0.99 for residual roots, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Thanks to faster and automated diagnoses on 2D as well as 3D dental images, dentists will have higher diagnosis rates in a shorter time even without excluding cases.

Where Is the Artificial Intelligence Applied in Dentistry? Systematic Review and Literature Analysis

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.