METHODS: External root resorption was simulated on 88 extracted premolar teeth using tungsten bur in different depths (0.5 mm, 1 mm, and 2 mm). All teeth were scanned using a Cone beam CT (Carestream Dental, Atlanta, GA). Afterward, a training (70%), validation (10%), and test (20%) dataset were established. The performance of four DLMs including Random Forest (RF) + Visual Geometry Group 16 (VGG), RF + EfficienNetB4 (EFNET), Support Vector Machine (SVM) + VGG, and SVM + EFNET) and four hybrid models (DLM + FST: (i) FS + RF + VGG, (ii) FS + RF + EFNET, (iii) FS + SVM + VGG and (iv) FS + SVM + EFNET) was compared. Five performance parameters were assessed: classification accuracy, F1-score, precision, specificity, and error rate. FST algorithms (Boruta and Recursive Feature Selection) were combined with the DLMs to assess their performance.

RESULTS: RF + VGG exhibited the highest performance in identifying ERR, followed by the other tested models. Similarly, FST combined with RF + VGG outperformed other models with classification accuracy, F1-score, precision, and specificity of 81.9%, weighted accuracy of 83%, and area under the curve (AUC) of 96%. Kruskal Wallis test revealed a significant difference (p = 0.008) in the prediction accuracy among the eight DLMs.

Materials and Methods: Using the MeSH keywords: artificial intelligence (AI), dentistry, AI in dentistry, neural networks and dentistry, machine learning, AI dental imaging, and AI treatment recommendations and dentistry. Two investigators performed an electronic search in 5 databases: PubMed/MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine), Scopus (Elsevier), ScienceDirect databases (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), and the Cochrane Collaboration (Wiley). The English language articles reporting on AI in different dental specialties were screened for eligibility. Thirty-two full-text articles were selected and systematically analyzed according to a predefined inclusion criterion. These articles were analyzed as per a specific research question, and the relevant data based on article general characteristics, study and control groups, assessment methods, outcomes, and quality assessment were extracted.

Results: The initial search identified 175 articles related to AI in dentistry based on the title and abstracts. The full text of 38 articles was assessed for eligibility to exclude studies not fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Six articles not related to AI in dentistry were excluded. Thirty-two articles were included in the systematic review. It was revealed that AI provides accurate patient management, dental diagnosis, prediction, and decision making. Artificial intelligence appeared as a reliable modality to enhance future implications in the various fields of dentistry, i.e., diagnostic dentistry, patient management, head and neck cancer, restorative dentistry, prosthetic dental sciences, orthodontics, radiology, and periodontics.

METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in the Web of Science (WOS) electronic database to identify the top 100 most-cited articles on AI in orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. Publication and citation data were obtained and further analyzed and visualized using R Biblioshiny. The key domains of the 100 articles were also identified.