Next Article in Journal
Renal Leukemic Infiltration Overlapping Acute Focal Bacterial Nephritis during Myelodysplastic Syndrome: An Autopsy Case Report
Previous Article in Journal
Bilateral Seminal Vesicle Invasion Is Not Associated with Worse Outcomes in Locally Advanced Prostate Carcinoma
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Survey on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by Clinicians in Dentistry and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

1
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hospital University Muenster, 48149 Muenster, Germany
2
Department of Oral Diagnostics and Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 14197 Berlin, Germany
3
Nijmegen Medical Centre, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Medicina 2022, 58(8), 1059; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58081059
Submission received: 21 June 2022 / Revised: 19 July 2022 / Accepted: 3 August 2022 / Published: 5 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Surgery)

Abstract

:
Background: Applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine and dentistry have been on the rise in recent years. In dental radiology, deep learning approaches have improved diagnostics, outperforming clinicians in accuracy and efficiency. This study aimed to provide information on clinicians’ knowledge and perceptions regarding AI. Methods: A 21-item questionnaire was used to study the views of dentistry professionals on AI use in clinical practice. Results: In total, 302 questionnaires were answered and assessed. Most of the respondents rated their knowledge of AI as average (37.1%), below average (22.2%) or very poor (23.2%). The participants were largely convinced that AI would improve and bring about uniformity in diagnostics (mean Likert ± standard deviation 3.7 ± 1.27). Among the most serious concerns were the responsibility for machine errors (3.7 ± 1.3), data security or privacy issues (3.5 ± 1.24) and the divestment of healthcare to large technology companies (3.5 ± 1.28). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, insights into the acceptance and use of AI in dentistry are revealed for the first time.

1. Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine and dentistry has drawn the attention of researchers in recent years because of its multiple applications [1,2]. AI is a decision-making and problem-solving model [3]. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) learn structural patterns of a given dataset (input) and perform tasks autonomously, resulting in a data-based output [4]. In machine learning, CNNs mimic human neurons [5], creating a network organized in layers that transfers complex input of data (e.g., images, radiographs) into output data (e.g., diagnosis, planning) [4]. In the last two decades, deep learning has significantly improved machine learning, due to its deep CNN architecture that learns and performs complicated tasks without human assistance [3], making clinical applications, such as computer-aided diagnosis, possible [6]. In this context, the Food and Drug Administration and Conformité Européenne approved radiograph-analyzing software [7].
Functional applications of AI in dentistry include assisted treatment planning, computer-aided diagnosis based on medical images and predictive data analytics [2]. The relevant literature on dental medicine includes the evaluation of treatment decisions [8], the survival prediction of patients with oral cavity carcinoma [9] and the diagnosis of caries using radiographs [10]. In dental radiology, deep learning approaches have improved diagnostics by outperforming clinicians in accuracy and efficiency [11,12]. Furthermore, they permit decreasing the time spent on tasks and the number of cases of missed findings, and they prevent overtreatment [1,5,7].
Nevertheless, the debate over sensitive data, privacy security and ethical concerns remains present in the research, public, political and industrial sectors. The uncertainty of the responsibility for machine errors and the currently vague guidelines require policymakers and medical professionals to seek legal clarification [13].
The misperception of AI might result in unsubstantiated concerns. So far, most studies investigated the perception of AI for medical professionals or for medicine and dentistry students, but only a few focused on dental professionals, with all research having been conducted outside Europe [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. Different educational standards in data and privacy security may result in a different legal clarification focus, depending on the location.
This study aimed to investigate dental clinicians’ knowledge and perceptions regarding AI. Giving professionals from the German district Westphalia-Lippe the opportunity to indicate the necessary steps for the introduction of AI in clinical settings is important in the context of coordinating a comprehensive educational program.

2. Materials and Methods

A 21-item questionnaire (Table A1) was used, adapted from the survey design by Scheetz et al. [21], who validated the survey through a literature review and consultation with medical specialists. A pilot test of the questionnaire was performed in advance. Disagreement on any questions was resolved by consensus (TE, SV, MH). This survey was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Westphalia-Lippe Medical Association, Westfälische-Wilhelms University Münster (decision no. 2021-616-f-S). This study was conducted in accordance with the code of ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki).

2.1. Sample Size

Sample size estimation and power calculation were waived. This study was purely explorative and observational without concrete hypothesis testing.

2.2. Study Design

This prospective anonymous online survey was conducted between December 2021 and March 2022. Invitations were sent to a random sample of 1500 dentists, specialist dentists and oral and craniomaxillofacial surgeons randomly chosen from the membership list of the Dental Association of Westfalen-Lippe, Germany. Participation was voluntary, and no incentives were provided. Informed consent was signed online before starting the survey. The questionnaire included demographic data and questions concerning AI-related knowledge, potential impact, expectations, advantages and concerns. The data were collected and managed using Q-Set.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The descriptive statistical analysis was performed on SPSS Version 28.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A two-sided chi-square test or two-sided Fischer’s test was used to calculate group differences. For an asymptomatic approximation, the Monte Carlo method was used when computational time was invalid. A p-value of <0.05 was set as the level of significance.

3. Results

From the 1500 invited clinicians, 450 questionnaires were answered, 148 of which were excluded as they were incomplete. A total of 302 questionnaires were assessed. As for the professions, 220 participants were general dentists, 30 were specialists in oral and maxillofacial surgery, 21 were orthodontists and 31 were specialists in conservative dentistry, including endodontics and periodontology (Figure 1). The majority of the respondents (43.4%) were in the age range of 46 to 60.
More than half of the participants practiced in an urban (36.1%) or somewhat urban (24.8%) environment (p = 0.054). Oral and maxillofacial surgeons were predominantly based in a metropolitan setting (somewhat urban/urban: 73.3%; p = 0.048).

3.1. Status of Knowledge and Use of AI in the Daily Workflow

Most of the respondents rated their knowledge of AI as average (37.1%), below average (22.2%) or very poor (23.2%). Only 6.3% reported having excellent AI knowledge. Orthodontists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons (38.1% and 36.7% of total respondents, respectively, reported having above average/excellent AI knowledge) reported having better knowledge of AI (p = 0.003). This imbalance also applies to the frequency of use. Orthodontists are almost three times more likely to use AI on a daily or weekly basis than their colleagues in other professions (61.9% of orthodontists; 21.0% summarizing GD, CD, CMF-Surgeon; p = 0.018) (Figure 2). Most of the participants (66.9%) stated that they never use AI in daily practice. Clinicians reported having better knowledge when the use of AI is frequent. A total of 47.7% of the dentists using AI daily rated their knowledge as above average or better. In comparison, only 9.8% of the dentists using AI infrequently rated their knowledge as above average or better (p < 0.001). An open-ended question was used to determine which AI-based applications participants use in daily clinical practice. While most answers indicate that the respondents do not use AI at all, the most mentioned application focused on radiology (n = 21). For most parts, the exact area of application remained unclear, and some participants specified using software like “dentalXrai”. The second and third most relevant use included intraoral-scanning (n = 20) and aligner treatment or planning (n = 10) (Table 1).

3.2. Predicted Impact of AI

The majority of the participants expected AI to impact their profession within 5 years (43%) or 5–10 years (36.1%), with almost half of them (49%) predicting a positive impact (Figure 3). Almost half of the respondents thought that AI would reduce the workforce in healthcare (44.7%), while almost the same portion predicted no changes in the number of healthcare workers (43.0%).

3.3. Tolerance Level of Faulty AI Performance

The majority of the participants desired AI performance to be superior to an average clinician (35.1%) or superior to the best-performing clinician (34.8%) in disease-screening support. Rural-based practitioners had lower expectations regarding AI performance in disease-screening support (equivalent to an average performing clinician or lower: 42.9%) than clinicians practicing in a metropolitan area (equivalent to or lower than an average performing clinician: 24.8%; p = 0.034). The expectations for acceptable performance standards in clinical decision support were higher (superior to an average performing clinician: 34.1%; better than an average performing clinician: 41.4%). There were no other statistically significant features (profession, age or experience with AI) associated with the responses.

3.4. Perceived Advantages of AI

The participants were largely convinced that AI would improve diagnostics by bringing about uniformity (mean Likert ± standard deviation 3.7 ± 1.27). However, the clinicians did not expect AI to influence referrals to specialists (3.0 ± 1.17) and rated the impact on cost-effectiveness as not relevant (2.9 ± 1.17) (Table 2).

3.5. Perceived Concerns over AI

While the positive impact of AI on the diagnostic process was rated as the most important influence of AI on dentistry, the responsibility for machine errors (mean Likert ± standard deviation 3.7 ± 1.3), data security or privacy issues (3.5 ± 1.24) and the divestment of healthcare to large technology companies (3.5 ± 1.28) were among the most serious concerns (Table 3).

3.6. Perceived Preparation of the Workplace for the Introduction of AI

Clinicians that reported never using AI are significantly more convinced that their workplace is not adequately prepared for the introduction of AI (67.3%, total of clinicians never using AI) than clinicians using AI daily (43.2%). However, 81.1% of the participants could imagine implementing a workflow that is based on AI for diagnostics support. There were no other statistically significant features (profession, age or experience with AI) associated with the responses.

4. Discussion

The perception of dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons regarding AI will play a major role in its successful implementation in healthcare. This study aimed to display dentistry professionals’ attitudes, knowledge, prospects and prognoses regarding the use of AI models in the clinical context. Many studies have investigated the perception of dental or medical students towards AI, but no study of dental and maxillofacial healthcare professionals in Europe had been conducted so far [14,16,17,19,20,21,22,23,24].
This study showed that the frequent use of AI in daily practice is a key factor for adequate knowledge in this area. The majority of the respondents that rated their knowledge as excellent (63.2%) use AI daily or weekly (p < 0.001). However, a lack of AI knowledge results in a negative attitude towards this technology [23]. One of the reasons for the frequent use of AI in the dental workflow may be the spread of aligner therapy that includes AI-guided treatment planning [25] or intraoral scanning [26].
Clinicians favoured the following major advantages of AI models: improved and uniform diagnosis combined with individual and evidence-based treatment. Other studies showed similar results [15,16,22]. In this context, radiologists rated the reduced time required for monotonous tasks as an important AI-derived improvement [22]. Dentists are requested to interpret a variety of radiographs (e.g., cone beam computed tomography, panoramic radiograph, bitewing, lateral cephalogram, etc.) [27]. Depending on the clinicians’ experience with different X-ray techniques, diagnoses vary widely and often deviate from the actual diagnostic findings [27]. The time-consuming diagnostic process can be efficiently and accurately performed by AI [3,10,28], allowing clinicians to dedicate more time to patient care. A significant increase in patient satisfaction has been shown when the clinician spends more time with the patient [29,30].
Concerns regarding the responsibility for AI-induced errors, the divestment of healthcare to large data and technology companies, as well as privacy and data security matters, were crucial for the participants and confirm the findings of surveys with other medical professions [22]. To increase trust in this technology, additional education on that topic is needed [5]. This is supported by the participants’ most common proposal, providing information relevant to AI use in dental seminars, congresses and professional meetings. Similar proposals have been documented elsewhere [22,23].
Despite several serious concerns, clinicians in various surveys agree on the positive impact of AI on their profession [15,17,18,20,23,24]. In a study with medical students from Germany, 83.7% expected AI-derived improvement in medicine in general [15], and students from nine Turkish dental schools showed similar results, with 85.7% agreeing that AI will lead to major advances in the dental sector [24]. This shows that the results of the present study are not only comparable to other surveys of dental healthcare professionals but also applicable to other medical areas. The impact of the supporting role of AI on all medical and dental professions will be evident in multidisciplinary areas and the daily clinical routine.
AI will continue to assist the clinician in the decision-making process by connecting information that otherwise would be difficult to collect and compare, especially over time [3]. Besides the support in diagnostics, it will boost efficiency and accuracy [3,10,28]. Devito et al. [31] achieved an improvement in the diagnosis of proximal caries by 39.4% using an artificial neural network when compared with 25 examiners’ diagnoses [31]. Cantu et al. compared dentists against a neural network, wherein the latter showed a significantly higher accuracy in caries detection, in particular for early caries lesions [10].
Along with those aspects, it is crucial to emphasize the supporting role of AI. In the near future, the decision process will not be conducted by AI systems alone, and the possibility of replacing clinicians is unrealistic [32]. The clinicians in this survey showed no significant difference regarding their opinion on AI’s impact on the required workforce. An investigation concerning specialists’ fears of being replaced by AI showed that it was rated as unlikely for most of the participants to be replaced by an AI (83%) [15]
Pauwels et al. documented decreased skepticism after a lecture about AI [23]. Additional education in this area may reduce negative attitudes towards AI and help make it an accepted tool in practitioners’ daily routines. Promoting AI in education, the inclusion of all stakeholders in the development process and ensuring a legal and ethical basis will be key elements for the success of AI in dentistry and medicine.
Furthermore, this study serves as a basis for future quantitative studies on this topic. More specifically, prospective studies may focus on the quality and effect of the implemented educational programs and guidelines to demonstrate the impact of AI models on dentistry practice.

Limitations

The sample size of this study (302 participants with memberships in the Dental Association of Westfalen-Lippe, Germany) is not representative of all regions of Germany. Due to voluntary participation, response bias cannot be excluded.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: M.H., S.V. and T.E.; methodology, M.H. and T.E.; software T.E.; validation J.K., F.S., M.H., L.B. and T.E.; formal analysis M.H., S.V. and T.E.; investigation T.E.; resources M.H.; data curation T.E. and L.B.; writing—original draft preparation T.E., M.H., S.V. and L.B.; writing—review and editing, J.K. and F.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (Ethics Committee of the Westphalia-Lippe Medical Association, Westfälische-Wilhelms University Münster, decision no. 2021-616-f-S, 20 October 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available by the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Questionnaire.
Table A1. Questionnaire.
1.How old are you?18–2526–4546–60
2.What is your profession?General dentistryPeriodontology
Oral- or maxillofacial surgeryOrthodontics
EndodonticsPedodontics
Other:[text]
3.Since when do work in your profession?In training<5 years5–10 years
20–30 years<30 years
4.Work environmentRuralUrbanSomewhat ruralSomewhat urban
5.How often do you use artificial intelligence in your daily work?NeverMonthlyWeekly
6.What are the areas of application you use AI for?[text]
7.In comparison to your colleagues in your profession how would you rate your knowledge in the topic of AI and it’s application possibilities in your profession? ExcellentAbove average
AverageBelow average
Very poor
8.How long will it take in your opinion until AI has a noticeable impact on your profession?<1 year1–5 years
5–10 years>10 years
never
9.To what extent do you expect AI to impact the workforce needed in your profession in this decade?To a great extentSomewhatVery little
10.To what extent do you expect AI to impact the workforce needed in your profession in the next decade?To a great extentSomewhatVery little
11.How will AI impact the workforce needed? IncreaseDecreaseNone
12.Is your profession adequately equipped for the application of AI?YesNoUnsure
13.What measures should be taken to prepare your profession for the application of AI?[text]
14.What degree of error tolerance is acceptable for an AI based model that is used for disease screening by non-specialized health care workers?Equivalent to the worst performingEquivalent to the average performing
Superior to the average performingEquivalent to the best performing
Superior to the best performing
15.What degree of error tolerance is acceptable for an AI based model that is used for support of a diagnostic decision by specialists?Equivalent to the worst performingEquivalent to the average performing
Superior to the average performingEquivalent to the best performing
Superior to the best performing
16.Can you imagine implementing the following workflow in your clinical life: Radiographs of a patient are diagnosed by an AI. A specialist evaluates the radiographs and the AI’s findings.YesNoUnsure
17.Which of the following advantages regarding the application of AI in clinical life are most important? Evaluate from 1–5 (1 = least significant, 5 = most significant)Better access to disease-screeningMore targeted referrals
More cost-efficient healthcareBetter diagnostics
Less time-consuming monotonous tasksMore consistent diagnostics
More individual and evidence-based treatmentBetter prediction of the course of disease
18.Which of the following aspect are the most concerning regarding the application of AI in clincal life? Evaluate from 1–5 (1 = most concerning, 5 = least concerning)Concerns regarding the outsouring of the steps of procedure to large data and technology companiesPrivacy and data security concerns
Concerns over accountability and responsibility in case of machine errorsLack of trust in diagnostic capability of the AI
Reduced demand for specialist groupsChallenge for the patient–doctor relationship
Concerns regarding the benchmarking between clinicians and AIConsequences for the workforce
19.Which of the following professions will profit most of the introduction of AI?EndodonticsOrthodontics
PedodonticsConservative Dentistry
Oral- and maxillofacial surgeryPeriodontics
ProsthodonticsOther: [text]
20.To what extent do you agree with the following statement:„The introduction of AI will lead to improvement in my profession.”Strongly agreeAgree
Neither agree or disagreeDisagree
Strongly disagree
21.To what extent do you agree with the following statement:„The introduction of AI will reduce iatrogenic errors in my profession.”Strongly agreeAgree
Neither agree or disagreeDisagree
Strongly disagree

References

  1. Pesapane, F.; Codari, M.; Sardanelli, F. Artificial intelligence in medical imaging: Threat or opportunity? Radiologists again at the forefront of innovation in medicine. Eur. Radiol. Exp. 2018, 2, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Ahmed, N.; Abbasi, M.S.; Zuberi, F.; Qamar, W.; Bin Halim, M.S.; Maqsood, A.; Alam, M.K. Artificial Intelligence Techniques: Analysis, Application, and Outcome in Dentistry—A Systematic Review. Biomed Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 9751564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chen, Y.-W.; Stanley, K.; Att, W. Artificial intelligence in dentistry: Current applications and future per-spectives. Quintessence Int. 2020, 51, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Chan, H.-P.; Samala, R.K.; Hadjiiski, L.M.; Zhou, C. Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2020, 1213, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Schwendicke, F.; Samek, W.; Krois, J. Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: Chances and Challenges. J. Dent. Res. 2020, 99, 769–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chan, H.-P.; Hadjiiski, L.M.; Samala, R.K. Computer-aided diagnosis in the era of deep learning. Med. Phys. 2020, 47, e218–e227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Van Leeuwen, K.G.; de Rooij, M.; Schalekamp, S.; van Ginneken, B.; Rutten, M.J.C.M. How does artificial intelligence in radiology improve efficiency and health outcomes? Pediatr. Radiol. 2021, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Thanathornwong, B. Bayesian-Based Decision Support System for Assessing the Needs for Orthodontic Treatment. Healthc. Inform. Res. 2018, 24, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lu, C.; Lewis, J.S.; Dupont, W.D.; Plummber, W.D.; Janowczyk, A.; Madabhushi, A. An oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma quantitative histomorphometric-based image classifier of nuclear morphology can risk stratify patients for disease-specific survival. Mod. Pathol. 2017, 30, 1655–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cantu, A.G.; Gehrung, S.; Krois, J.; Chaurasia, A.; Rossi, J.G.; Gaudin, R.; Elhennawy, K.; Schwendicke, F. Detecting caries lesions of different radiographic extension on bitewings using deep learning. J. Dent. 2020, 100, 103425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Saghiri, M.A.; Garcia-Godoy, F.; Gutmann, J.L.; Lotfi, M.; Asgar, K. The Reliability of Artificial Neural Network in Locating Minor Apical Foramen: A Cadaver Study. J. Endod. 2012, 38, 1130–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Vranckx, M.; van Gerven, A.; Willems, H.; Vandemeulebroucke, A.; Leite, A.F.; Politis, C.; Jacobs, R. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Driven Molar Angulation Measurements to Predict Third Molar Eruption on Panoramic Radiographs. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gerke, S.; Babic, B.; Evgeniou, T.; Cohen, I.G. The need for a system view to regulate artificial intelligence/machine learning-based software as medical device. NPJ Digit. Med. 2020, 3, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Oh, S.; Kim, J.H.; Choi, S.-W.; Lee, H.J.; Hong, J.; Kwon, S.H. Physician Confidence in Artificial Intelligence: An Online Mobile Survey. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, e12422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Dos Santos, D.P.; Giese, D.; Brodehl, S.; Chon, S.H.; Staab, W.; Kleinert, R.; Maintz, D.; Baeßler, B. Medical students’ attitude towards artificial intelligence: A multicentre survey. Eur. Radiol. 2019, 29, 1640–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Litjens, G.; Kooi, T.; Bejnordi, B.E.; Setio, A.A.A.; Ciompi, F.; Ghafoorian, M.; van der Laak, J.A.W.M.; van Ginneken, B.; Sánchez, C.I. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Med. Image Anal. 2017, 42, 60–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Castagno, S.; Khalifa, M. Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Among Healthcare Staff: A Qualitative Survey Study. Front. Artif. Intell. 2020, 3, 578983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sit, C.; Srinivasan, R.; Amlani, A.; Muthuswamy, K.; Azam, A.; Monzon, L.; Poon, D.S. Attitudes and perceptions of UK medical students towards artificial intelligence and radiology: A multicentre survey. Insights Imaging 2020, 11, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Collado-Mesa, F.; Alvarez, E.; Arheart, K. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Diagnostic Radiology: A Survey at a Single Radiology Residency Training Program. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2018, 15, 1753–1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bisdas, S.; Topriceanu, C.-C.; Zakrzewska, Z.; Irimia, A.-V.; Shakallis, L.; Subhash, J.; Casapu, M.-M.; Leon-Rojas, J.; dos Santos, D.P.; Andrews, D.M.; et al. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: A Multinational Multi-Center Survey on the Medical and Dental Students’ Perception. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 795284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sur, J.; Bose, S.; Khan, F.; Dewangan, D.; Sawriya, E.; Roul, A. Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions regarding the future of artificial intelligence in oral radiology in India: A survey. Imaging Sci. Dent. 2020, 50, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Scheetz, J.; Rothschild, P.; McGuinness, M.; Hadoux, X.; Soyer, H.P.; Janda, M.; Condon, J.J.J.; Oakden-Rayner, L.; Palmer, L.J.; Keel, S.; et al. A survey of clinicians on the use of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology, dermatology, radiology and radiation oncology. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 5193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Pauwels, R.; Del Rey, Y.C. Attitude of Brazilian dentists and dental students regarding the future role of artificial intelligence in oral radiology: A multicenter survey. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2021, 50, 20200461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Yüzbaşıoğlu, E. Attitudes and perceptions of dental students towards artificial intelligence. J. Dent. Educ. 2021, 85, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Weir, T. Clear aligners in orthodontic treatment. Aust. Dent. J. 2017, 62, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Khanagar, S.B.; Al-Ehaideb, A.; Maganur, P.C.; Vishwanathaiah, S.; Patil, S.; Baeshen, H.A.; Sarode, S.C.; Bhandi, S. Developments, application, and performance of artificial intelligence in dentistry—A systematic review. J. Dent. Sci. 2021, 16, 508–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Woodward, T.M. Dental Radiology. Top. Companion Anim. Med. 2009, 24, 20–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kulkarni, S.; Seneviratne, N.; Baig, M.S.; Khan, A.H.A. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Where Are We Now? Acad. Radiol. 2020, 27, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Morrell, D.C.; Evans, M.E.; Morris, R.W.; Roland, M.O. The “five minute” consultation: Effect of time constraint on clinical content and patient satisfaction. BMJ 1986, 292, 870–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Like, R.; Zyzanski, S.J. Patient satisfaction with the clinical encounter: Social psychological determinants. Soc. Sci. Med. 1987, 24, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Devito, K.L.; de Souza Barbosa, F.; Filho, W.N.F. An artificial multilayer perceptron neural network for diagnosis of proximal dental caries. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2008, 106, 879–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Langlotz, C.P. Will Artificial Intelligence Replace Radiologists? Radiol. Artif. Intell. 2019, 1, e190058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Flow chart describing the compilation of the survey participants.
Figure 1. Flow chart describing the compilation of the survey participants.
Medicina 58 01059 g001
Figure 2. Self-reported frequency of the use of AI in clinical practice.
Figure 2. Self-reported frequency of the use of AI in clinical practice.
Medicina 58 01059 g002
Figure 3. Approval rating of the statement “The introduction of AI will lead to improvement in my profession”.
Figure 3. Approval rating of the statement “The introduction of AI will lead to improvement in my profession”.
Medicina 58 01059 g003
Table 1. Applications of artificial intelligence (AI) mentioned in an open-ended question.
Table 1. Applications of artificial intelligence (AI) mentioned in an open-ended question.
ApplicationAppearance (n)%
No use of AI in clinical practice3128.7%
Radiology and diagnosis with radiographs2119.4%
Intraoral scanning2018.6%
Aligner treatment109.3%
CAD/CAM *98.3%
Implantology98.3%
Treatment planning87.4%
Total108100%
* Computer-aided design (CAD)/Computer-aided manufacturing (CAM).
Table 2. The advantages of AI in dentistry according to 302 dentists rated on a 5-point Likert scale. 1: low relevance; 5: high relevance.
Table 2. The advantages of AI in dentistry according to 302 dentists rated on a 5-point Likert scale. 1: low relevance; 5: high relevance.
StatementsMean (SD)
Improved diagnostics3.7 (1.3)
Uniformity in diagnostics3.6 (1.1)
More individual and evidence-based health care3.4 (1.1)
Reduced time on monotonous tasks3.2 (1.3)
Improvement in disease prediction3.2 (1.1)
Improved access to disease screening3.1 (1.2)
More targeted referrals to specialists3.0 (1.2)
More cost-efficient health care2.9 (1.2)
Table 3. The concerns over the use of AI in dentistry according to 302 as rated on a 5-point Likert scale. 1: a little concerning; 5: highly concerning.
Table 3. The concerns over the use of AI in dentistry according to 302 as rated on a 5-point Likert scale. 1: a little concerning; 5: highly concerning.
StatementsMean (SD)
Concerns over liability and responsibility for machine errors3.7 (1.3)
Concerns over data security and privacy issues3.5 (1.2)
Concerns over the divestment of healthcare to technology companies3.5 (1.3)
Lack of trust in the diagnostic capability of AI3.1 (1.0)
Concerns over a reduced need for specialists3.0 (1.2)
Challenge for the patient–doctor relationship2.8 (1.2)
Concerns regarding the comparison between clinicians and AI2.8 (1.2)
Negative impact on the workforce2.7 (1.2)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Eschert, T.; Schwendicke, F.; Krois, J.; Bohner, L.; Vinayahalingam, S.; Hanisch, M. A Survey on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by Clinicians in Dentistry and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Medicina 2022, 58, 1059. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58081059

AMA Style

Eschert T, Schwendicke F, Krois J, Bohner L, Vinayahalingam S, Hanisch M. A Survey on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by Clinicians in Dentistry and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Medicina. 2022; 58(8):1059. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58081059

Chicago/Turabian Style

Eschert, Tim, Falk Schwendicke, Joachim Krois, Lauren Bohner, Shankeeth Vinayahalingam, and Marcel Hanisch. 2022. "A Survey on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by Clinicians in Dentistry and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery" Medicina 58, no. 8: 1059. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58081059

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop