Truace
Subscribe

Can Artificial Intelligence Match Human Expertise in Long-Term Periodontal Prognosis? A Comparative Accuracy Study

To compare the prognostic performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of experienced clinicians in predicting tooth loss over a 10-year period. An AI model trained on structured clinical and radiographic data was compared with 12 periodontists and 11 general dentists (GDs), who independently assigned prognostic scores (0-10 scale) to 300 teeth with known 10-year outcomes. AI and clinician performance were evaluated under a fixed threshold and group-specific optimal thresholds. Accuracy, sensit…

By the Truvace desk1 min read1 sourcePeer-reviewedTRV-2026-0856· cite & verify
Can Artificial Intelligence Match Human Expertise in Long-Term Periodontal Prognosis? A Comparative Accuracy Study
Assessing neurophysiologic markers for training and simulation to develop expertise in complex cognitive tasks by Sullivan, Joseph A.. Public domain

In brief

To compare the prognostic performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of experienced clinicians in predicting tooth loss over a 10-year period. An AI model trained on structured clinical and radiographic data was compared with 12 periodontists and 11 general dentists (GDs), who independently assigned prognostic scores (0-10 scale) to 300 teeth with known 10-year outcomes.

AI and clinician performance were evaluated under a fixed threshold and group-specific optimal thresholds. Using the fixed threshold (score > 5 = survival), clinicians achieved higher overall accuracy than AI (75.6% periodontists, 74.9% GDs, 69.2% AI; p < 0.05), with sensitivity low and comparable across groups (14.7%-22.7%).

Main points

  1. To compare the prognostic performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of experienced clinicians in predicting tooth loss over a 10-year period.
  2. An AI model trained on structured clinical and radiographic data was compared with 12 periodontists and 11 general dentists (GDs), who independently assigned prognostic scores (0-10 scale) to 300 teeth with known 10-year outcomes.
  3. AI and clinician performance were evaluated under a fixed threshold and group-specific optimal thresholds.

The gain

Using the fixed threshold (score > 5 = survival), clinicians achieved higher overall accuracy than AI (75.6% periodontists, 74.9% GDs, 69.2% AI; p < 0.05), with sensitivity low and comparable across groups (14.7%-22.7%).

The rundown

AI and clinician performance were evaluated under a fixed threshold and group-specific optimal thresholds. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration were used for comparison.

Sources

  1. Peer-reviewedJournal of Clinical Periodontology2026-08-21

The debate