Reliability and accuracy of Artificial intelligence-based software for cephalometric diagnosis. A diagnostic study.
Artificial intelligence
Cephalometry
Software
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Oct 2024
28 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
20
04
2024
accepted:
23
10
2024
medline:
29
10
2024
pubmed:
29
10
2024
entrez:
29
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing cephalometric diagnosis in orthodontics, streamlining the patient assessments. This study aimed to assess the reliability, accuracy, and time consumption of artificial intelligence (AI)-based software compared to a conventional digital cephalometric analysis method on 2D lateral cephalogram. 408 lateral cephalometries were analysed using three methods: manual landmark localization, automatic localization, and semi-automatic localization with AI-based software. On each lateral cephalogram, 15 variables were selected, including skeletal, dental, and soft tissue measurements. The difference between the two AI-based software options (automatic and semi-automatic) was compared with the conventional digital technique. The time required to produce a complete cephalometric tracing was evaluated for each method using Student's t-test. Statistically significant differences in the accuracy of landmark positioning were detected among the three different techniques (p < 0,01). However, it is noteworthy that almost all of these differences were not clinically significant. There was a small difference in accuracy between the semi-automatic AI-based option and conventional digital techniques. Regarding the time used for each technique, the automatic version was the fastest, followed by the semi-automatic option and the conventional digital technique. (p < 0,000). The study showed a statistical difference in accuracy between the conventional digital technique and two AI-based software alternatives, but these differences were not clinically significant except for specific measurements. The semi-automatic option was more accurate than the automatic one and faster than conventional tracing. Further research is needed to confirm AI's accuracy in cephalometric tracing.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing cephalometric diagnosis in orthodontics, streamlining the patient assessments. This study aimed to assess the reliability, accuracy, and time consumption of artificial intelligence (AI)-based software compared to a conventional digital cephalometric analysis method on 2D lateral cephalogram.
METHODS
METHODS
408 lateral cephalometries were analysed using three methods: manual landmark localization, automatic localization, and semi-automatic localization with AI-based software. On each lateral cephalogram, 15 variables were selected, including skeletal, dental, and soft tissue measurements. The difference between the two AI-based software options (automatic and semi-automatic) was compared with the conventional digital technique. The time required to produce a complete cephalometric tracing was evaluated for each method using Student's t-test.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Statistically significant differences in the accuracy of landmark positioning were detected among the three different techniques (p < 0,01). However, it is noteworthy that almost all of these differences were not clinically significant. There was a small difference in accuracy between the semi-automatic AI-based option and conventional digital techniques. Regarding the time used for each technique, the automatic version was the fastest, followed by the semi-automatic option and the conventional digital technique. (p < 0,000).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The study showed a statistical difference in accuracy between the conventional digital technique and two AI-based software alternatives, but these differences were not clinically significant except for specific measurements. The semi-automatic option was more accurate than the automatic one and faster than conventional tracing. Further research is needed to confirm AI's accuracy in cephalometric tracing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39468520
doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-05097-6
pii: 10.1186/s12903-024-05097-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1309Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Proffit WR, Fields HW, Larson B. Contemporary orthodontics. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2018.
Nielsen IL. A comprehensive diagnostic system for orthodontists-Beyond Angle’s classification. J Taiwan Assoc Orthod. 2019;31(3):153–65.
Tanna NK, AlMuzaini AAAY, Mupparapu M. Imaging in orthodontics. Dent Clin North Am. 2021;65:623–41.
doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2021.02.008
pubmed: 34051933
Shrestha R, Kandel S. A comparative study on use of manual versus digital method using mobile application for cephalometric measurements. Orthod J Nepal. 2020;10:11–6.
doi: 10.3126/ojn.v10i1.30997
Hlongwa P. Cephalometric analysis: manual tracing of a lateral cephalogram. S Afr Dent J. 2019;74:389–93.
doi: 10.17159/2519-0105/2019/v74no7a6
Yoon HJ, Kim DR, Gwon E. Fully automated identification of cephalometric landmarks for upper airway assessment using cascaded convolutional neural networks. Eur J Orthod. 2022;44:66–77.
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjab054
pubmed: 34379120
Gupta AR, Jha MS, Saurav S. Hand tracing verses digital tracing with PACS method. Int J Contemp Med Res. 2019;6:33–7.
Uysal T, Baysal A, Yagci A. Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(5):523–8.
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjp022
pubmed: 19443692
Nathasha MM, Chakravarthi NCS, Srinivasan D. Orthodontics in the era of digital innovation – a review. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2021;10:2114–21.
doi: 10.14260/jemds/2021/432
Monill-González A, Rovira-Calatayud L, d’Oliveira NG. Artificial intelligence in orthodontics: where are we now? A scoping review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021;24:6–15.
doi: 10.1111/ocr.12517
pubmed: 34270881
Kiełczykowski M, Kamiński K, Perkowski K, Zadurska M, Czochrowska E. Application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in a cephalometric analysis: a narrative review. Diagnostics. 2023;13(16).
Hendrickx J, Gracea RS, Vanheers M, Winderickx N, Preda F, Shujaat S et al. Can artificial intelligence-driven cephalometric analysis replace manual tracing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2024;46(4).
Narkhede S, Rao P, Sawant V, Sachdev SS, Arora S, Pawar AM et al. Digital versus Manual tracing in Cephalometric Analysis: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Pers Med. 2024;14(6).
Butul B, Sharab L. Obstacles behind the innovation- a peek into Artificial intelligence in the field of orthodontics – A literature review. Saudi Dent J. 2024;36(6):830–4.
doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2024.03.008
pubmed: 38883898
pmcid: 11178964
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015;351:h5527.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.h5527
pubmed: 26511519
pmcid: 4623764
Tikku T, Khanna R, Maurya RP, Srivastava K, Bhushan R. Comparative evaluation of cephalometric measurements of monitor-displayed images by Nemoceph software and its hard copy by manual tracing. J Oral Biol Craniofacial Res. 2014;4(1):35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2013.11.002
Kim YH, Park JB, Chang MS, Ryu JJ, Lim WH, Jung SK. Influence of the depth of the convolutional neural networks on an artificial intelligence model for diagnosis of orthognathic surgery. J Pers Med. 2021;11(5).
Kula K, Ghoneima A. In: Huffman L, editor. Cephalometry in Orthodontics: 2D and 3D. Quintessence Publishing; 2019.
Yassir YA, Salman AR, Nabbat SA. The accuracy and reliability of WebCEPH for cephalometric analysis. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2022;17:57–66.
pubmed: 35140566
Ranganathan P, Pramesh C, Buyse M. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: clinical versus statistical significance. Perspect Clin Res. 2015;6(3):169.
doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.159943
pubmed: 26229754
pmcid: 4504060
Sharma H. Statistical significance or clinical significance? A researcher’s dilemma for appropriate interpretation of research results. Saudi J Anaesth. 2021;15(4):431–4.
doi: 10.4103/sja.sja_158_21
pubmed: 34658732
pmcid: 8477766
Santoro M, Jarjoura K, Cangialosi TJ. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006;129:345–51.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.010
Erkan M, Gurel HG, Nur M. Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:318–21.
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr008
pubmed: 21502380
Segura FJE, Valverde AS, Ocampo AM. Comparative study between digital and manual cephalometry with digital radiographs. Rev Mex De Ortod. 2014;2:e93–6.
doi: 10.1016/S2395-9215(16)30134-9
Alfawzan AA. Assessment of Skeletal Maturity in a sample of the Saudi Population using cervical vertebrae and frontal sinus index: a cephalometric study using Artificial Intelligence. Cureus. 2023;15(7):e41811.
pubmed: 37575855
pmcid: 10423065
Kunz F, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Zeman F, Boldt J. Artificial intelligence in orthodontics. J Orofac Orthop / Fortschr Der Kieferorthopädie. 2020;81(1):52–68.
doi: 10.1007/s00056-019-00203-8
Tsolakis IA, Tsolakis AI, Elshebiny T. Comparing a fully automated cephalometric tracing method to a manual tracing method for orthodontic diagnosis. J Clin Med. 2022;11:6854.
doi: 10.3390/jcm11226854
pubmed: 36431331
pmcid: 9693212
Ye H, Cheng Z, Ungvijanpunya N. Is automatic cephalometric software using artificial intelligence better than orthodontist experts in landmark identification? BMC Oral Health. 2023;23:467.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03188-4
pubmed: 37422630
pmcid: 10329795
Hwang HW, Park JH, Moon JH. Automated identification of cephalometric landmarks: part 2 – might it be better than human? Angle Orthod. 2019;90:69–76.
doi: 10.2319/022019-129.1
pubmed: 31335162
pmcid: 8087057
Schwendicke F, Chaurasia A, Arsiwala L. Deep learning for cephalometric landmark detection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25:4299–309.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-03990-w
pubmed: 34046742
pmcid: 8310492
Junaid N, Khan N, Ahmed N. Development, application, and performance of artificial intelligence in cephalometric landmark identification and diagnosis: a systematic review. Healthcare. 2022;10:2454.
doi: 10.3390/healthcare10122454
pubmed: 36553978
pmcid: 9778374
Le VNT, Kang J, Oh IS. Effectiveness of human–Artificial intelligence collaboration in cephalometric landmark detection. J Pers Med. 2022;12:387.
doi: 10.3390/jpm12030387
pubmed: 35330386
pmcid: 8954049
El-Dawlatly MM, Attia KH, AbdelGhaffar AY. Preciseness of artificial intelligence for lateral cephalometric measurements. J Orofac Orthop. 2023():1–7.
Duran GS, Gökmen Ş, Topsakal KG, Görgülü S. Evaluation of the accuracy of fully automatic cephalometric analysis software with artificial intelligence algorithm. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2023;26(3):481–90.
doi: 10.1111/ocr.12633
pubmed: 36648374
Azeez SM, Surji FF, Kadir SO, Karim R. Accuracy and reliability of WebCeph Digital Cephalometric Analysis in Comparison with conventional cephalometric analysis. World J Dent. 2023;14:727–32.
doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2285
Bao H, Zhang K, Yu C. Evaluating the accuracy of automated cephalometric analysis based on artificial intelligence. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23:191.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-02881-8
pubmed: 37005593
pmcid: 10067288
Mahto RK, Kafle D, Giri A. Evaluation of fully automated cephalometric measurements obtained from web-based artificial intelligence driven platform. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22:1–8.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02170-w
Liu J, Chen YT, Cheng K. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000;118:535–40.
doi: 10.1067/mod.2000.110168
Kang S, Kim I, Kim YJ, Kim N, Baek SH, Sung SJ. Accuracy and clinical validity of automated cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural networks. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2024;27(1):64–77.
doi: 10.1111/ocr.12683
pubmed: 37326233
Indermun S, Shaik S, Nyirenda C, Johannes K, Mulder R. Human examination and artificial intelligence in cephalometric landmark detection-is AI ready to take over? Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2023;52(6):1–14.
doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20220362
Jiang F, Guo Y, Yang C, Zhou Y, Lin Y, Cheng F, et al. Artificial intelligence system for automated landmark localization and analysis of cephalometry. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2023;52(1):20220081.
doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20220081