Back to all papers

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

April 25, 2026medrxiv logopreprint

Authors

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.

Affiliations (1)

  • RadboudUMC

Abstract

BackgroundRadiographic 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. ObjectiveTo compare the diagnostic performance of commercial and experimental AI algorithms for detecting secondary caries lesions on bitewings. MethodsThis 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(R), 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. ResultsSpecificity 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. ConclusionsAI 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 SignificanceAI-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.

Topics

dentistry and oral medicine

Ready to Sharpen Your Edge?

Subscribe to join 11k+ peers who rely on RadAI Slice. Get the essential weekly briefing that empowers you to navigate the future of radiology.

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.