Evaluating the Utility of Generative AI Models for Synthetic Medical Image Generation: A Study on Panoramic Dental X-Rays

Abstract

Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into dental practice can streamline processes that are otherwise manual and time-consuming. However, implementing AI in dentistry poses challenges, primarily due to the limited availability of clinical data, especially for rare cases, compounded by ethical and regulatory constraints. To address these challenges, synthetic data generation has increasingly been recognised as a promising solution. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the clinical usability of AI-generated panoramic dental X-rays produced by large-scale multimodal generative AIs, specifically GPT o4 mini high and Copilot, using textual prompts. These synthetic images were generated across multiple categories, enabling a comprehensive evaluation of the models’ capabilities. The primary objective was to determine whether AI generated images, produced from structured textual prompts and real sample descriptions, could be used for learning-based model training. For this purpose, an expert dentist evaluated the 61 generated synthetic images from a clinical perspective, focusing on their visual realism, anatomical accuracy, clinical/educa tional utility, image clarity, and absence of artefacts. Both models generated images rated satisfactorily across all quality dimensions, with GPT o4 mini high achieving significantly superior anatomical fidelity and realism than Copilot. It was observed that neither system could consistently reproduce fine anatom ical details with pixel-level accuracy, a limitation that may prevent its use in applications requiring exact replication. Despite these limitations, the high quality and realism of the synthetic images highlight the potential of multimodal generative AIs. Thus, the study’s findings suggest that synthetic panoramic images can reduce the reliance on scarce patient data, thereby accelerating the development of AI applications in dentistry.

Keywords

• Synthetic Data Generation
• Dental Radiography
• Multimodal Generative AI
• Clinical Usability
• Data Scarcity in Dentistry

References

1. R. Baza. 2024. Evaluating artificial intelligence in dental radiography. google scholar
2. F. Umer and N. Adnan. 2024. Generative artificial intelligence: synthetic datasets in dentistry. BDJ Open 10, 1, 13. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41405-024-00144-9 google scholar
3. F. Schwendicke and J. Krois. 2022. Data dentistry: how data are changing clinical care and research. J. Dent. Res. 101, 1 (Jan. 2022), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345211041658 google scholar
4. L. T. Reyes, J. K. Knorst, F. R. Ortiz, and T. M. Ardenghi. 2021. Scope and challenges of machine learning-based diagnosis and prognosis in clinical dentistry: A literature review. J. Clin. Transl. Res. 7, 4, 523. google scholar
5. T. Wang, Y. Lei, Y. Fu, J. F. Wynne, W. J. Curran, T. Liu, and X. Yang. 2021. A review on medical imaging synthesis using deep learning and its clinical applications. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 22, 1, 11–36. google scholar
6. L. R. Koetzier, J. Wu, D. Mastrodicasa, A. Lutz, M. Chung, W. A. Koszek, et al. 2024. Generating synthetic data for medical imaging. Radiology 312, 3, e232471. google scholar
7. A. Hosseini and A. Serag. 2025. Is synthetic data generation effective in maintaining clinical biomarkers? Investigating diffusion models across diverse imaging modalities. Front. Artif. Intell. 7, 1454441. google scholar
8. A. B. Abdusalomov, R. Nasimov, N. Nasimova, B. Muminov, and T. K. Whangbo. 2023. Evaluating synthetic medical images using artificial intelligence with the GAN algorithm. Sensors 23, 7, 3440. google scholar

9. M. Farhadi Nia, M. Ahmadi, and E. Irankhah. 2025. Transforming dental diagnostics with artificial intelligence: Advanced integration of ChatGPT and large language models for patient care. Front. Dent. Med. 5, 1456208. google scholar
10. Z. Yang, Z. Yao, M. Tasmin, P. Vashisht, W. S. Jang, F. Ouyang, et al. 2025. Unveiling GPT-4V’s hidden challenges behind high accuracy on USMLE questions: Observational study. J. Med. Internet Res. 27, e65146. google scholar
11. S. Tian, Q. Jin, L. Yeganova, P. T. Lai, Q. Zhu, X. Chen, et al. 2024. Opportunities and challenges for ChatGPT and large language models in biomedicine and health. Brief. Bioinform. 25, 1, bbad493. google scholar
12. H. Fukuda, M. Morishita, K. Muraoka, S. Yamaguchi, T. Nakamura, I. Yoshioka, et al. 2025. Evaluating the image recognition capabilities of GPT-4V and Gemini Pro in the Japanese national dental examination. J. Dent. Sci. 20, 1, 368–372. google scholar
13. N. Sharmin and A. K. Chow. From text to tissue: Artificial intelligence-generation of biological images. J. Dent. Educ. (in press). google scholar
14. M. Silhadi, W. B. Nassrallah, D. Mikhail, D. Milad, and M. Harissi-Dagher. 2025. Assessing the performance of Microsoft Copilot, GPT-4 and Google Gemini in ophthalmology. Can. J. Ophthalmol. (in press). google scholar
15. D. Stephan, A. Bertsch, M. Burwinkel, S. Vinayahalingam, B. Al-Nawas, P. W. Kämmerer, and D. G. Thiem. 2024. AI in dental radiology —improving the efficiency of reporting with ChatGPT: Comparative study. J. Med. Internet Res. 26, e60684. google scholar
16. A. Mittal, A. K. Moorthy, and A. C. Bovik. 2012. No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 21, 12, 4695–4708. google scholar
17. Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 13, 4, 600–612. google scholar
18. R. Zhang, P. Isola, A. A. Efros, E. Shechtman, and O. Wang. 2018. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 586–595. google scholar
19. M. Büttner, R. Rokhshad, J. Brinz, J. Issa, A. Chaurasia, S. E. Uribe, et al. 2024. Core outcomes measures in dental computer vision studies (DentalCOMS). J. Dent. 150, 105318. google scholar
20. H. M. S. S. Herath, H. M. K. K. M. B. Herath, N. Madusanka, and B. I. Lee. 2025. A systematic review of medical image quality assessment. J. Imaging 11, 4, 100. google scholar
21. S. Pedersen, S. Jain, M. Chavez, V. Ladehoff, B. N. de Freitas, and R. Pauwels. 2025. Pano-GAN: A deep generative model for panoramic dental radiographs. J. Imaging 11, 2, 41. google scholar
22. F. Khader, G. Müller-Franzes, S. Tayebi Arasteh, T. Han, C. Haarburger, M. Schulze-Hagen, et al. 2023. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models for 3D medical image generation. Sci. Rep. 13, 1, 7303. google scholar
23. G. Müller-Franzes, J. M. Niehues, F. Khader, S. T. Arasteh, C. Haarburger, C. Kuhl, et al. 2023. A multimodal comparison of latent denoising diffusion probabilistic models and generative adversarial networks for medical image synthesis. Sci. Rep. 13, 1, 12098. google scholar
24. B. De Wilde, A. Saha, M. de Rooij, H. Huisman, and G. Litjens. 2023. Medical diffusion on a budget: Textual inversion for medical image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13430. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.13430 google scholar
25. K. Kokomoto, R. Okawa, K. Nakano, and K. Nozaki. 2021. Intraoral image generation by progressive growing of generative adversarial network and evaluation of generated image quality by dentists. Sci. Rep. 11, 1, 18517. google scholar
26. S. Y. Jeong, E. J. Bae, H. S. Jang, S. Na, and S. Y. Ihm. 2024. Study on virtual tooth image generation utilizing CF-fill and Pix2pix for data augmentation. Sci. Rep. 14, 1 (2024), 26772. google scholar
27. S. Pedersen, S. Jain, M. Chavez, V. Ladehoff, B. N. de Freitas, and R. Pauwels. 2025. Pano-GAN: A deep generative model for panoramic dental radiographs. J. Imaging 11, 2 (2025), 41. google scholar
28. M. Chaichuk, S. Gautam, S. Hicks, and E. Tutubalina. 2025. Prompt to polyp: Clinically-aware medical image synthesis with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05573. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.05573 google scholar
29. J. Rousseau, C. Alaka, E. Covili, H. Mayard, L. Misrachi, and W. Au. 2023. Pre-training with diffusion models for dental radiography segmentation. In Proc. Int. Conf. Med. Image Comput. Comput.-Assisted Interv., Cham, Switzerland, 174–182. google scholar
30. R. Di Via, F. Odone, and V. P. Pastore. 2025. Self-supervised pre-training with diffusion model for few-shot landmark detection in X-ray images. In 2025 IEEE/CVF Winter Conf. on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), Waikoloa, HI, USA, 3886–3896. google scholar
31. I. E. Hamamci, S. Er, E. Simsar, A. Sekuboyina, M. Gundogar, B. Stadlinger, et al. 2023. Diffusion-based hierarchical multi-label object detection to analyze panoramic dental X-rays. In Proc. Int. Conf. Med. Image Comput. Comput.-Assisted Interv., Cham, Switzerland, 389–399. google scholar
32. F. Khader, G. Müller-Franzes, S. Tayebi Arasteh, T. Han, C. Haarburger, M. Schulze-Hagen, et al. 2023. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models for 3D medical image generation. Sci. Rep. 13, 1 (2023), 7303. google scholar
33. A. L. Y. Hung, K. Zhao, H. Zheng, R. Yan, S. S. Raman, D. Terzopoulos, and K. Sung. 2023. Med-cDiff: Conditional medical image generation with diffusion models. Bioengineering 10, 11 (2023), 1258. google scholar
34. Y. Shi, A. Abulizi, H. Wang, K. Feng, N. Abudukelimu, Y. Su, and H. Abudukelimu. 2024. Diffusion models for medical image computing: A survey. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 30, 1 (2024), 357–383. google scholar
35. F. Umer and N. Adnan. 2024. Generative artificial intelligence: Synthetic datasets in dentistry. BDJ Open 10 (2024), 13. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41405-024-00144-9 google scholar
36. S. Pedersen, S. Jain, M. Chavez, V. Ladehoff, B. N. de Freitas, and R. Pauwels. 2025. Pano-GAN: A deep generative model for panoramic dental radiographs. J. Imaging 11, 2 (2025), 41. google scholar
37. C. Gao, B. D. Killeen, Y. Hu, R. B. Grupp, R. H. Taylor, M. Armand, and M. Unberath. 2023. Synthetic data accelerates the development of generalizable learning-based algorithms for X-ray image analysis. Nat. Mach. Intell. 5, 3 (2023), 294–308. google scholar
38. S. A. Koohpayegani. 2024. Improving efficiency of deep learning models. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Davis, CA, USA. google scholar
39. D. B. Dangi, B. B. Dangi, and O. Steinbock. 2025. Evaluation of GPT-4o and GPT-4o-Mini’s vision capabilities for compositional analysis from dried solution drops. ACS Omega 10, 18 (2025), 18955–18959. google scholar
40. M. Sourek. 2025. Artificial Intelligence in Architecture and the Built Environment: The Revolution Yet to Come. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. google scholar
41. P. Rouzrokh, B. Khosravi, S. Faghani, M. Moassefi, M. M. Shariatnia, P. Rouzrokh, and B. Erickson. 2025. A current review of generative AI in medicine: Core concepts, applications, and current limitations. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med. (2025), 1–21. google scholar
42. Y. Zhang, F. Ye, L. Chen, F. Xu, X. Chen, H. Wu, et al. 2023. Children’s dental panoramic radiographs dataset for caries segmentation and dental disease detection. Sci. Data 10, 1 (2023), 380. google scholar
43. A. Mittal, A. K. Moorthy, and A. C. Bovik. 2011. Blind/referenceless image spatial quality evaluator. In Proc. 45th Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems and Computers (ASILOMAR), Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 723–727. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACSSC.2011.6190099 google scholar
44. Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 13, 4 (Apr. 2004), 600–612. google scholar
45. R. Zhang, P. Isola, A. A. Efros, E. Shechtman, and O. Wang. 2018. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), 586–595. google scholar
46. Z. Hanusz, J. Tarasinska, and W. Zielinski. 2016. Shapiro–Wilk test with known mean. REVSTAT Stat. J. 14, 1 (2016), 89–100. https:// doi.org/10.57805/revstat.v14i1.180 google scholar
47. T. W. MacFarland and J. M. Yates. 2016. Kruskal–Wallis H-test for oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) by ranks. In Introduction to Nonparametric Statistics for the Biological Sciences Using R. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 177–211. google scholar
48. D. G. Pereira, A. Afonso, and F. M. Medeiros. 2015. Overview of Friedman’s test and post-hoc analysis. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput. 44, 10 (2015), 2636–2653. google scholar
49. R. F. Woolson. 2005. Wilcoxon signed-rank test. In Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, P. Armitage and T. Colton (Eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA. google scholar
50. J. Hauke and T. Kossowski. 2011. Comparison of values of Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaest. Geogr. 30, 2 (2011), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10117-011-0021-1 google scholar