Accuracy of artificial intelligence-assisted landmark identification in serial lateral cephalograms of Class III patients who underwent orthodontic treatment and two-jaw orthognathic surgery

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the pattern of accuracy change in artificial intelligence-assisted landmark identification (LI) using a convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithm in serial lateral cephalograms (Lat-cephs) of Class III (C-III) patients who underwent twojaw orthognathic surgery. Methods: A total of 3,188 Lat-cephs of C-III patients were allocated into the training and validation sets (3,004 Lat-cephs of 751 patients) and test set (184 Lat-cephs of 46 patients; subdivided into the genioplasty and non-genioplasty groups, n = 23 per group) for LI. Each C-III patient in the test set had four Lat-cephs: initial (T0), pre-surgery (T1, presence of orthodontic brackets [OBs]), post-surgery (T2, presence of OBs and surgical plates and screws [S-PS]), and debonding (T3, presence of S-PS and fixed retainers [FR]). After mean errors of 20 landmarks between human gold standard and the CNN model were calculated, statistical analysis was performed. Results: The total mean error was 1.17 mm without significant difference among the four timepoints (T0, 1.20 mm; T1, 1.14 mm; T2, 1.18 mm; T3, 1.15 mm). In comparison of two time-points ([T0, T1] vs. [T2, T3]), ANS, A point, and B point showed an increase in error (p < 0.01, 0.05, 0.01, respectively), while Mx6D and Md6D showeda decrease in error (all p < 0.01). No difference in errors existed at B point, Pogonion, Menton, Md1C, and Md1R between the genioplasty and non-genioplasty groups. Conclusions: The CNN model can be used for LI in serial Lat-cephs despite the presence of OB, S-PS, FR, genioplasty, and bone remodeling.

Development, Application, and Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Cephalometric Landmark Identification and Diagnosis: A Systematic Review

“…Overall, the AI algorithm architecture (CNN, ANN) showed promising results in cephalometric landmark detection and analysis compared with human subjects, as shown in Table 1 . Moreover, 19 articles [ 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ] were excluded from this review, as shown in Supplementary Table S1 .…”

Artificial intelligence applications and ethical challenges in oral and maxillo-facial cosmetic surgery: a narrative review

“…In a study by Hong et al, the accuracy of AI-assisted cephalometric landmark detection in jaw orthognathic surgery cases had been reported to be 75%, even when orthodontic brackets, surgical plates, screws, fixed retainers, genioplasty, and bone remodeling were present [22]. A CNN model was 94.4% accurate for diagnosing orthognathic surgery cases using both lateral and frontal cephalograms [23].…”

Highlight the major clinical studies on orthognathic surgery in the correction of anomalies in Class III patients: a systematic review

“…Also, orthopedic treatments with skeletal anchorage are becoming a new paradigm for the early treatment of Class III malocclusion [49][50][51]. Several studies cite the use of extraoral apparatus associated with this type of anchorage [52,53].…”