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

Table 4

Newcastle-Ottawa scale based quality assessment of selected studies ().

Author and year	Selection	Compatibility	Exposure	Newcastle-Ottawa quality (total)
Abdalla-Aslan et al. [5] 2020				7
Bouchahma et al. [6] 2019				7
Kuwada et al. [7] 2020				7
Lee et al. [8] 2020				6
Ekert et al. [9] 2019				8
Saghiri et al. [10] 2012				7
Arisu et al. [11] 2018				6
Yamaguchi et al. [12] 2019				8
Otani et al. [13] 2015				7
Wang et al. [14] 2014				6
Takahashi et al. [15] 2020				7
Patcas et al. [16] 2019				6
Li et al. [17] 2020				8
Li et al. [44] 2015				8
Edinger [30] 2004				4
Meissner et al. [31] 2006				6
Meissner et al. [32] 2005				6
Devito et al. [33] 2008				7
Kositbowornchai et al. [34] 2006				6
Patcas et al. [35] 2019				7
Lee et al. [36] 2018				6
Vranckx et al. [37] 2020				7
Lee et al. [38] 2020				8
Hung et al. [39] 2019				7
Cui et al. [27] 2020				6
Sornam and Prabhakaran [40] 2019				7
Setzer et al. [41] 2020				7
Cantu et al. [42] 2020				8
Aliaga et al. [45] 2020				6
Kim et al. [28] 2018				7
Dumast et al. [29] 2018				7
Sorkhabi and Khajeh [43] 2019				7

A study can be awarded a maximum of 1 star for each numbered item within the selection and exposure categories. A maximum of 2 stars can be given for comparability. Each study can be awarded a total of 9 stars. A study was rated to have a low risk of biasness if it received the maximum allowed number of 9 “stars” while moderate risk if it received 8, 7, or 6 “stars” and high risk if it received 5 “stars” or less.