Table 6.
Performance comparison of hybrid CNN-Based models for dental condition detection
| Model | Dental Condition | F1-Score | Precision | Recall | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNN + DT | Cavity | 0.793 ± 0.028 | 0.789 ± 0.019 | 0.798 ± 0.026 | 0.812 ± 0.029 |
| Fillings | 0.823 ± 0.022 | 0.834 ± 0.032 | 0.812 ± 0.024 | 0.812 ± 0.029 | |
| Impacted Tooth | 0.788 ± 0.025 | 0.784 ± 0.018 | 0.792 ± 0.026 | 0.812 ± 0.029 | |
| Implant | 0.788 ± 0.030 | 0.801 ± 0.024 | 0.776 ± 0.026 | 0.812 ± 0.029 | |
| Macro Average | 0.798 ± 0.026 | 0.802 ± 0.023 | 0.795 ± 0.025 | 0.812 ± 0.029 | |
| CNN + RF | Cavity | 0.828 ± 0.021 | 0.823 ± 0.027 | 0.834 ± 0.023 | 0.854 ± 0.023 |
| Fillings | 0.860 ± 0.033 | 0.876 ± 0.022 | 0.845 ± 0.039 | 0.854 ± 0.023 | |
| Impacted Tooth | 0.854 ± 0.037 | 0.848 ± 0.029 | 0.859 ± 0.020 | 0.854 ± 0.023 | |
| Implant | 0.828 ± 0.030 | 0.839 ± 0.016 | 0.817 ± 0.037 | 0.854 ± 0.023 | |
| Macro Average | 0.843 ± 0.028 | 0.847 ± 0.024 | 0.839 ± 0.030 | 0.854 ± 0.023 | |
| CNN + SVM | Cavity | 0.749 ± 0.019 | 0.745 ± 0.025 | 0.754 ± 0.032 | 0.786 ± 0.031 |
| Fillings | 0.787 ± 0.022 | 0.798 ± 0.024 | 0.776 ± 0.036 | 0.786 ± 0.031 | |
| Impacted Tooth | 0.759 ± 0.034 | 0.748 ± 0.034 | 0.771 ± 0.039 | 0.786 ± 0.031 | |
| Implant | 0.755 ± 0.019 | 0.762 ± 0.027 | 0.748 ± 0.023 | 0.786 ± 0.031 | |
| Macro Average | 0.763 ± 0.024 | 0.763 ± 0.028 | 0.762 ± 0.033 | 0.786 ± 0.031 |