Machine learning (ML) is being increasingly employed in dental research and application. We aimed to systematically compile studies using ML in dentistry and assess their methodological quality, including the risk of bias and reporting standards. We evaluated studies employing ML in dentistry published from 1 January 2015 to 31 May 2021 on MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, and arXiv. We assessed publication trends and the distribution of ML tasks (classification, object detection, semantic segmentation, instance segmentation, and generation) in different clinical fields. We appraised the risk of bias and adherence to reporting standards, using the QUADAS-2 and TRIPOD checklists, respectively. Out of 183 identified studies, 168 were included, focusing on various ML tasks and employing a broad range of ML models, input data, data sources, strategies to generate reference tests, and performance metrics. Classification tasks were most common. Forty-two different metrics were used to evaluate model performances, with accuracy, sensitivity, precision, and intersection-over-union being the most common. We observed considerable risk of bias and moderate adherence to reporting standards which hampers replication of results. A minimum (core) set of outcome and outcome metrics is necessary to facilitate comparisons across studies.
