AI-Assisted CBCT Data Management in Modern Dental Practice: Benefits, Limitations and Innovations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper claims a review of AI benefits in medical diagnostics, targeting CBCT scan assessment. According to the paper abstract, this paper analyses reliability, effectiveness, usefulness, limitations and errors. This is missing throughout the paper. It seems rather a technical report than a review paper.

The introduction is way to long. The field of research is described correctly. I would also add classification as  an application of CNNs (line 51). Also CBCT is well defined and exemplified with specific applications. However, the purpose of this work is missing from the introduction, the authors only provide 3 lines of text (141-143) on the 4th page of introduction. Also, what is the novelty of this review in contrast to predecessors?

Section 2 Materials and Methods indicates on CBCT analysis software, it is not clear whether the authors use only one software to assess the advantages on AI? The authors list what the software does (LINES 178 - 188), each is described. But then for the review part, the authors only indicate that AI support is possible. 

This is not a thorough review. What is the inclusion criteria to the review.  What are the advantages/disadvantages, performance gains and limitations of the studied methods?

Mind section numbering. After section 3 comes section 5. Also, the discussions section should have given a numeric evaluation, perhaps in a tabular form, of the studied methods. 

The conclusion is in no way supported by the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments and suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.

We have revised the text of the abstract and discussion so that the paper better reflects the studies analyzing reliability, efficacy, benefits, limitations, and errors. We have covered these topics in more detail throughout the paper so that the structure of the paper better fits a review paper. The changes were made mainly, but not only, in lines 11-24, 454-460, and 474-505.

We have compacted the texts in the Introduction to reduce its length, for example lines 103-109 or 135-146. As suggested, we have also added classification of an application of CNNs and elaborated on the purpose of this paper (lines 286-296). Here we have also discussed the novelty of this review in contrast to its predecessors.

In the Materials and Methods chapter, we added two separate subsections with definitions for the parameters of the scoping review and the software used. We further clarified the research question, inclusion criteria, population of interest, types of studies and interventions, and terms and databases searched. We separately clarified what software was used and for what purpose. LINES 306-392

We have corrected the organization of the paper.

The conclusions were revised and now are supported from the findings presented in the paper.

Thank you for your time and effort.

authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper provides an overview of the benefits of AI implementation in standard medical diagnostic workflows in dental practices. It explores whether AI tools can enable healthcare professionals to increase their reliability, effectiveness, and usefulness and addresses potential limitations and errors that may occur. The paper includes a risk and benefit assessment. The paper shows AI solutions can improve current digital workflows including CBCT data management. Automated CBCT segmentation is one of the current trends and innovations. and serves as a helpful tool for creating the treatment plan as well as communicating the problem to the patient in an understandable way.

Figure 2b is unclear. If it refers to 2a then it doesn't fit, maybe it should be as a separate figure 3.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment and suggestion.

We have made various improvements to the text shown in Tracked changes visualizations. In regard to your comment on Figure 2. We have improved the description of the Figure 2a and 2b. A red circle has been drawn to better explain the relationship between 2a and 2b,

Thank you for your time and effort.

authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments have been addressed.