Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

A Comparative Study of Dentists’ Ability to Detect Enamel-only Proximal Caries in Bitewing Radiographs With and Without the use of AssistDent® Artificial Intelligence Software

Hugh Devlin, Tomos Williams, Jim Graham, Martin Ashley
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.12.20211292
Hugh Devlin
1Professor of Restorative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester; Director, Manchester Imaging Ltd
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tomos Williams
2Honorary Research Assistant, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester; Software Manager, Manchester Imaging Ltd
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: tomos.williams@manchester.ac.uk
Jim Graham
3Honorary Reader, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester; Director, Manchester Imaging Ltd
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin Ashley
4Consultant and MAHSC Honorary Professor in Restorative Dentistry and Oral Health, University Dental Hospital of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Enamel-only proximal caries, if detected, can be reversed by non-invasive treatments. Dental bitewing radiograph analysis is central to diagnosis and treatment planning and, when used to detect enamel-only proximal caries, it is an important tool in minimum intervention and preventive dentistry. However, the subtle patterns of enamel-only proximal caries visible in bitewing radiographs are difficult to detect and often missed by dental practitioners. This study measures the ability of dentists to detect enamel-only proximal caries in bitewing radiographs with and without the use of AssistDent® Artificial Intelligence (AI) software.

23 dentists were randomly divided into a control arm, in which no Artificial Intelligence assistance was provided, and an experimental arm in which Artificial Intelligence assistance provided on-screen prompts for potential locations of enamel-only proximal caries. All participants analysed a set of 24 bitewings, gathered from one dental hospital and 11 general dental practices, which had previously been analysed independently by a panel of 5 dento-maxillofacial radiologists and 1 professor of restorative dentistry who, between them, identified a total of 65 enamel-only carious lesions and 241 healthy proximal surfaces.

Results demonstrate that dentists using the assistive software found 75.8% of the enamel-only proximal caries compared to a 44.3% detection rate in the control group. This represents an absolute increase of 31.5% (relative increase in sensitivity of 71%). Participants in the experimental group incorrectly identified 14.6% of the healthy surfaces as having enamel-only proximal caries compared to 3.7% in the control group, an absolute increase of 10.9% (relative decrease in specificity of 11%).

T-test analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference (p<0.01) between the two arms in sensitivity (true positive caries detection rate) and specificity (false positive rate).

We conclude that AssistDent® Artificial Intelligence software significantly improves dentists’ ability to detect enamel-only proximal caries, with only a slight increase in false positives, and could be considered as a tool to support minimum intervention and preventive dentistry in general practice.

Competing Interest Statement

HD, JG and TW are employees, of Manchester Imaging Ltd. The Division of Dentistry, University of Manchester, purchased a software licence for AssistDent@[reg] from Manchester Imaging Ltd. MA is not an employee of Manchester Imaging Ltd and declares no conflict of interest.

Clinical Trial

Manchester University Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 2020-9892-15955)

Funding Statement

No external funding was received

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Manchester University Research Ethics Committee

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data is provided in the main paper

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted October 14, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Comparative Study of Dentists’ Ability to Detect Enamel-only Proximal Caries in Bitewing Radiographs With and Without the use of AssistDent® Artificial Intelligence Software
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
A Comparative Study of Dentists’ Ability to Detect Enamel-only Proximal Caries in Bitewing Radiographs With and Without the use of AssistDent® Artificial Intelligence Software
Hugh Devlin, Tomos Williams, Jim Graham, Martin Ashley
medRxiv 2020.10.12.20211292; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.12.20211292
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
A Comparative Study of Dentists’ Ability to Detect Enamel-only Proximal Caries in Bitewing Radiographs With and Without the use of AssistDent® Artificial Intelligence Software
Hugh Devlin, Tomos Williams, Jim Graham, Martin Ashley
medRxiv 2020.10.12.20211292; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.12.20211292

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (62)
  • Allergy and Immunology (142)
  • Anesthesia (44)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (409)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (68)
  • Dermatology (47)
  • Emergency Medicine (141)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (171)
  • Epidemiology (4817)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (177)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (671)
  • Geriatric Medicine (70)
  • Health Economics (188)
  • Health Informatics (621)
  • Health Policy (314)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (200)
  • Hematology (85)
  • HIV/AIDS (155)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5284)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (327)
  • Medical Education (91)
  • Medical Ethics (24)
  • Nephrology (73)
  • Neurology (677)
  • Nursing (41)
  • Nutrition (112)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (126)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (203)
  • Oncology (439)
  • Ophthalmology (138)
  • Orthopedics (36)
  • Otolaryngology (89)
  • Pain Medicine (35)
  • Palliative Medicine (15)
  • Pathology (128)
  • Pediatrics (193)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (129)
  • Primary Care Research (84)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (771)
  • Public and Global Health (1800)
  • Radiology and Imaging (322)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (138)
  • Respiratory Medicine (255)
  • Rheumatology (86)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (69)
  • Sports Medicine (61)
  • Surgery (100)
  • Toxicology (23)
  • Transplantation (28)
  • Urology (37)