# Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

## TL;DR

This paper reviews how artificial intelligence improves diagnostic accuracy in pediatric dentistry, especially for tasks like caries detection and ECC risk prediction.

## Contribution

The study provides a systematic review and meta-analysis of AI diagnostic performance in pediatric dental applications.

## Key findings

- AI models showed high pooled sensitivity and specificity for radiographic caries detection.
- Deep learning models outperformed traditional machine learning in pediatric dental diagnostics.
- Heterogeneity across studies limits immediate clinical implementation of AI in pediatric dentistry.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) has gained substantial prominence in pediatric dentistry, offering new opportunities to enhance diagnostic precision and clinical decision-making. AI-based systems are increasingly applied in caries detection, early childhood caries (ECC) risk prediction, tooth development assessment, mesiodens identification, and other key diagnostic tasks. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize evidence on the diagnostic performance of AI models developed specifically for pediatric dental applications. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase following PRISMA-DTA guidelines. Studies evaluating AI-based diagnostic or predictive models in pediatric populations (≤18 years) were included. Reference screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated using random-effects models. Sources of heterogeneity related to imaging modality, annotation strategy, and dataset characteristics were examined. Results: Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis, and fifteen were eligible for quantitative analysis. For radiographic caries detection, pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.91, 0.97, and 0.98, respectively. Prediction models demonstrated good diagnostic performance, with pooled sensitivity of 0.86, specificity of 0.82, and AUC of 0.89. Deep learning architectures, particularly convolutional neural networks, consistently outperformed traditional machine learning approaches. Considerable heterogeneity was identified across studies, primarily driven by differences in imaging protocols, dataset balance, and annotation procedures. Beyond quantitative accuracy estimates, this review critically evaluates whether current evidence supports meaningful clinical translation and identifies pediatric domains that remain underrepresented in AI-driven diagnostic innovation. Conclusions: AI technologies exhibit strong potential to improve diagnostic accuracy in pediatric dentistry. However, limited external validation, methodological variability, and the scarcity of prospective real-world studies restrict immediate clinical implementation. Future research should prioritize the development of multicenter pediatric datasets, harmonized annotation workflows, and transparent, explainable AI (XAI) models to support safe and effective clinical translation.