has not yet been mastered, despite years of effort and oceans of investment. Narrow AIs, however, already easily match or surpass hu- man abilities, and they have become the tools of choice for performing many exacting tasks. Many of these involve computer vision, the analysis and recognition of objects or imagery. More than a decade ago, it was found that a trained AI could recognise and categorise nodules in radio- graphs of cancer patients’ lungs as accurately as a panel of oncologists could, and much faster. Computer vision and AI are now familiar parts of the oncological toolkit, and they are being applied to a widening array of medical fields. One of those is dentistry. Dentists are in an excellent position to take full advantage of AI. There exists, to start with, a virtually limitless supply of dental radiographs for training. The radiographic image is the coin of the realm in dentistry; patients are accustomed to having their pathologies explained to them with reference to the “spectral smudges on an X-ray” evoked by The Atlantic’s reporter. The range of pathologies to be detected is rela- tively narrow, and the AI program can not only identify them but also quantify them with greater than human precision. The dental radiograph is, therefore, an ideal application for the sharp focus of narrow AI. The second opinion—so to speak—provided by an AI program is directly valuable to the practitioner. The computer is hypersensitive to subtle greyscale gradations; it may detect something the human reader has overlooked. More impor- tantly, it is never tired, distracted or rushed and so is not prone to the types of mistakes and oversights that people routinely make simply because they are human. The AI program may in many cases simply duplicate the perceptions of the human, in which case nothing is gained but confirmation, but it may add information overlooked by the human or differ in its interpretation, leading to a re-examination and re-evaluation of the evidence. Even if these benefits may seem minor to an experienced practitioner confident in his or her abilities, there is another side of the AI experience to consider: the patient’s. The results of the AI program’s analysis are presented to the patient in vivid, intuitively understandable form. The radiograph no longer consists merely of spectral smudges, but has become graphically compelling, having highlighted areas, colour-coded outlines and explanatory labels. For a patient, the enhanced display conveys a heightened sense of pre- cision, clarity and objectivity. The diagnosis is no longer just the opinion of one person, whom a cynic might suspect of ulterior motives. It need not be taken on faith; it is supported by the unbiased authority of a digital computer. While the graphic presentation of a computed analysis may impress a patient as something more than human, the prac- titioner should be aware that the AI program is an assistant, not a supervisor. Even though the accuracy of AI’s radio- graphic analyses in various medical fields has been shown to be indistinguishable from that of human interpreters, the AI program actually knows much less about teeth (or lungs or livers) than the trained and experienced practitioner does. What it does know, and knows very well, is how a large number of specialists have interpreted a very large number of radiographs. Its findings are, in effect, those that hundreds or thousands of dentists would make if they were to vote on the content of a given radiograph. Where there is not unanimous agreement, majority opinion prevails, or findings are presented in terms of probabilities. The practitioner using the AI program remains entirely free to form a different opinion or to disregard the advice the program gives, but has the benefit of knowing what a large group of peers would have made of the radiograph in question. The most significant impact of dental AI, however, is not that it necessarily brings a superhuman level of certainty to the data upon which diagnoses are based—although in most cases it may—but that it provides, for the first time, an objective and uni- versally accessible standard of reference. Objective standards are precisely the thing that dentistry has lacked in the past, and their absence has given rise to suspicions about the candour and consistency of dental diagnoses. Look at the Reader’s Digest writer: guided only by a phone book, he collected a bewilderingly large variety of diagnoses. If he had visited only dental offices using an AI assistant, he would have been given a much smaller variety, and the differences would have been due to small variations among the radiographs made by dif- ferent practices rather than to the whims of individual dentists or the immediate financial needs besetting them. Consistency is not the only thing AI brings to dentistry. It also provides support for insurance claims and facilitates record-keeping, tracking of patients’ dental health and com- parison of performance among multiple practices in an orga- nisation. It trains dentists at the same time as dentists train it. In the future, it may reveal connections between dental health and general health that we do not now suspect. Those are some of the collateral benefits. Above all, however, AI will give patients the reassurance of knowing that the condition of their teeth is not merely a matter of opinion. Editorial note: This article was first published in digital— international magazine of digital dentistry, Vol. 4, Issue 1/2023. about Dr Kyle Stanley is a specialist in implantology and a passionate advocate for mental health in the dental profession. He is founder and chief clinical offi cer of Pearl, a company transforming patient care through artifi cial intelligence. Dr Stanley maintains a private practice in Beverly Hills in the US, where he focuses on implant surgery and prosthetics. opinion | m o c . k c o t s r e t t u h S / r a t s r e p u S © AI dentistry AI dentistry AI dentistry AI dentistry 11 1 2024 11