Hybrid optimization improves detection accuracy in restorative dentistry, suggesting AI could aid decision-support for dental restorations.
Background/Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly used to support radiological assessment in dentistry. We benchmarked machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), and a hybrid optimization-assisted approach for the automatic five-class image-level classification of dental restorations (filling, implant, root canal treatment, fixed partial denture/bridge, crown) on panoramic radiographs. Methods: We analyzed 353 anonymized panoramic images comprising 2137 labeled restorations, acquired on the same device. Images were cropped and enhanced (histogram equalization and CLAHE), and texture features were extracted with GLCM. A three-stage pipeline was evaluated: (i) GLCM-based features classified by conventional ML and a baseline DL model; (ii) Hybrid Grey Wolf–Particle Swarm Optimization (HGWO-PSO) for feature selection followed by SVM; and (iii) a CNN trained end-to-end on raw images. Performance was assessed with an 80/20 per-patient split and 5-fold cross-validation on the training set. While each panoramic radiograph may contain multiple restorations, in this study we modeled the task as single-label, image-level classification (dominant restoration type) due to pipeline constraints; this choice is discussed as a limitation and motivates multi-label, localization-based approaches in future work. The CNN baseline was implemented in TensorFlow 2.12 (CUDA 11.8/cuDNN 8.9) and trained with Adam (learning rate 1 × 10−4), with a batch size 32 and up to 50 epochs with early stopping (patience 5); data augmentation included horizontal flips, ±10° rotations, and ±15% brightness variation. A post hoc power analysis (G*Power 3.1; α = 0.05, β = 0.2) confirmed sufficient sample size (n = 353, power > 0.84). Results: The HGWO-PSO + SVM configuration achieved the highest accuracy (73.15%), with macro-precision/recall/F1 = 0.728, outperforming the CNN (68.52% accuracy) and traditional ML models (SVM 67.89%; DT 59.09%; RF 58.33%; K-NN 53.70%). Conclusions: On this single-center dataset, the hybrid optimization-assisted classifier moderately improved detection performance over the baseline CNN and conventional ML. Given the dataset size and class imbalance, the proposed system should be interpreted as a decision-supportive tool to assist dentists rather than a stand-alone diagnostic system. Future work will target larger, multi-center datasets and stronger DL baselines to enhance generalizability and clinical utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ATEŞ et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: