Back to all papers

Artificial Intelligence in Temporomandibular Joint Imaging: Diagnostic Performance Across Input Modality-Target Pairings-A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis.

November 12, 2026pubmed logopapers

Authors

Choi E,Song CW

Affiliations (3)

  • Department of Oral Medicine, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, 892 Dongnam-ro, Gangdong-gu, Seoul 05278, Republic of Korea.
  • School of Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea.
  • Department of Oral Medicine, Wonkwang University Sanbon Dental Hospital, 321 Sanbon-ro, Gunpo-si, Gyeonggi-do 15865, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

To estimate standalone artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic performance in temporomandibular joint (TMJ) imaging across input modality-target pairings. Four databases were searched through 18 June 2026. Eligible studies assessed standalone imaging AI and supplied an exact test-set 2 × 2 table in the report or after author contact. Four pairings were analysed by bivariate meta-regression. Two reviewers applied QUADAS-3 at estimate level. Sixteen studies contributed 17 estimates. For disc displacement, magnetic resonance imaging input yielded pooled sensitivity 0.924 (95% CI, 0.859-0.960) and specificity 0.812 (0.709-0.885), compared with 0.765 (0.618-0.867) and 0.741 (0.592-0.850) for panoramic or cone-beam computed tomography input. The sensitivity difference was 0.159 and remained 0.152-0.198 in leave-one-out and replicate analyses; the omnibus pairing test was not significant (χ²(6) = 10.38, P = .110). Reference-standard relation and pairing partitioned the disc-displacement evidence identically. No estimate had low overall risk of bias, and several otherwise eligible estimates lacked exact published 2 × 2 data. Sensitivity was higher when disc displacement was depicted directly on magnetic resonance imaging than when inferred from imaging that does not depict the disc. However, the cross-domain group contained only three estimates, the omnibus pairing test was not significant, and design factors were entangled. Performance should therefore be interpreted by pairing, while direct depiction versus proxy inference requires prospective testing. TMJ imaging AI performance should be interpreted in the context of the input modality-target pairing rather than as a property of the algorithm alone; exact test-set confusion matrices are essential for verification.

Topics

Journal Article

Ready to Sharpen Your Edge?

Subscribe to join 11k+ peers who rely on RadAISlice. Get the essential weekly briefing that empowers you to navigate the future of radiology.

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.