Artificial Intelligence Techniques: Analysis, Application, and Outcome in Dentistry—A Systematic Review

Table 3

Methodological quality assessment results of the included studies ().

Author and year	Randomization	Blinding	Withdrawal/dropout mentioned	Variables measured many times	Sample size estimation	Inclusion/exclusion criteria clear	Examiner reliability tested	Expected outcomes prespecified	Quality of study/bias risk
Abdalla-Aslan et al. [5] 2020	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Bouchahma et al. [6] 2019	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Kuwada et al. [7] 2020	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Lee et al. [8] 2020	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Ekert et al. [9] 2019	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Saghiri et al. [10] 2012	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Arisu et al. [11] 2018	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Moderate
Yamaguchi et al. [12] 2019	No	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Moderate
Otani et al. [13] 2015	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Wang et al. [14] 2014	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Moderate
Takahashi et al. [15] 2020	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Patcas et al. [16] 2019	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Moderate
Li et al. [17] 2020	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Li et al. [44] 2015	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Edinger [30] 2004	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Moderate
Meissner et al. [31] 2006	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Meissner et al. [32] 2005	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Devito et al. [33] 2008	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Kositbowornchai et al. [34] 2006	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Moderate
Patcas et al. [35] 2019	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Lee et al. [36] 2018	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Vranckx et al. [37] 2020	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Lee et al. [38] 2020	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Moderate
Hung et al. [39] 2019	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Cui et al. [27] 2020	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Sornam and Prabhakaran [40] 2019	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Setzer et al. [41] 2020	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Cantu et al. [42] 2020	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Aliaga et al. [45] 2020	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Kim et al. [28] 2018	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Dumast et al. [29] 2018	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Sorkhabi and Khajeh [43] 2019	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low

A study was graded to have a low risk of bias if it yielded 6 or more “yes” answers to the 9 questions, moderate risk if it yielded 3 to 5 “yes” answers, and high risk if it yielded 2 “yes” answers or less.