Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Cephalometric Landmarks: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Can artificial intelligence-driven cephalometric analysis replace manual tracing? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the accuracy and efficiency of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven automated landmark detection for cephalometric analysis on two-dimensional (2D) lateral cephalograms and three-dimensional (3D) cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) images.

SEARCH METHODS

An electronic search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and grey literature with search timeline extending up to January 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies that employed AI for 2D or 3D cephalometric landmark detection were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies were performed independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the 2D landmarks identification based on both mean radial error and standard error.

RESULTS

Following the removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening, and full-text reading, 34 publications were selected. Amongst these, 27 studies evaluated the accuracy of AI-driven automated landmarking on 2D lateral cephalograms, while 7 studies involved 3D-CBCT images. A meta-analysis, based on the success detection rate of landmark placement on 2D images, revealed that the error was below the clinically acceptable threshold of 2 mm (1.39 mm; 95% confidence interval: 0.85-1.92 mm). For 3D images, meta-analysis could not be conducted due to significant heterogeneity amongst the study designs. However, qualitative synthesis indicated that the mean error of landmark detection on 3D images ranged from 1.0 to 5.8 mm. Both automated 2D and 3D landmarking proved to be time-efficient, taking less than 1 min. Most studies exhibited a high risk of bias in data selection (n = 27) and reference standard (n = 29).

CONCLUSION

The performance of AI-driven cephalometric landmark detection on both 2D cephalograms and 3D-CBCT images showed potential in terms of accuracy and time efficiency. However, the generalizability and robustness of these AI systems could benefit from further improvement.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42022328800.

Automatic cephalometric landmark identification with artificial intelligence: An umbrella review of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

The transition from manual to automatic cephalometric landmark identification has not yet reached a consensus for clinical application in orthodontic diagnosis. The present umbrella review aimed to assess artificial intelligence (AI) performance in automatic 2D and 3D cephalometric landmark identification.

DATA

A combination of free text words and MeSH keywords pooled by boolean operators: Automa* AND cephalo* AND ("artificial intelligence" OR "machine learning" OR "deep learning" OR "learning").

SOURCES

A search strategy without a timeframe setting was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and LILACS.

STUDY SELECTION

The study protocol followed the PRISMA guidelines and the PICO question was formulated according to the aim of the article. The database search led to the selection of 15 articles that were assessed for eligibility in full-text. Finally, 11 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed according to the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool.

CONCLUSIONS

AI was not able to identify the various cephalometric landmarks with the same accuracy. Since most of the included studies' conclusions were based on a wrong 2 mm cut-off difference between the AI automatic landmark location and that allocated by human operators, future research should focus on refining the most powerful architectures to improve the clinical relevance of AI-driven automatic cephalometric analysis.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Despite a progressively improved performance, AI has exceeded the recommended magnitude of error for most cephalometric landmarks. Moreover, AI automatic landmarking on 3D CBCT appeared to be less accurate compared to that on 2D X-rays. To date, AI-driven cephalometric landmarking still requires the final supervision of an experienced orthodontist.

Comparison of Three Commercially Available, AI-Driven Cephalometric Analysis Tools in Orthodontics

Background: Cephalometric analysis (CA) is an indispensable diagnostic tool in orthodontics for treatment planning and outcome assessment. Manual CA is time-consuming and prone to variability. Methods: This study aims to compare the accuracy and repeatability of CA results among three commercial AI-driven programs: CephX, WebCeph, and AudaxCeph. This study involved a retrospective analysis of lateral cephalograms from a single orthodontic center. Automated CA was performed using the AI programs, focusing on common parameters defined by Downs, Ricketts, and Steiner. Repeatability was tested through 50 randomly reanalyzed cases by each software. Statistical analyses included intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3) for agreement and the Friedman test for concordance. Results: One hundred twenty-four cephalograms were analyzed. High agreement between the AI systems was noted for most parameters (ICC3 > 0.9). Notable differences were found in the measurements of angle convexity and the occlusal plane, where discrepancies suggested different methodologies among the programs. Some analyses presented high variability in the results, indicating errors. Repeatability analysis revealed perfect agreement within each program. Conclusions: AI-driven cephalometric analysis tools demonstrate a high potential for reliable and efficient orthodontic assessments, with substantial agreement in repeated analyses. Despite this, the observed discrepancies and high variability in part of analyses underscore the need for standardization across AI platforms and the critical evaluation of automated results by clinicians, particularly in parameters with significant treatment implications.

Comparison Between an Expert Operator an Inexperienced Operator, and Artificial Intelligence Software: A Brief Clinical Study of Cephalometric Diagnostic

INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence (AI) is constantly developing in several medical areas and has become useful to assist with treatment planning. Orthodontics and maxillofacial surgery use AI-based technology to identify and select cephalometric points for diagnostics. Although some studies have shown promising results from the use of AI, the evidence is still limited. Hence, additional investigation is justified.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 2 human operators (1 expert and 1 inexperienced) and 1 software analyzed 30 lateral cephalograms of individuals with orthodontic treatment indications. They measured 10 cephalometric variables and then 2 weeks later, repeated measurements on 30% of the sample. We evaluated the reliability of the measurements between the 2-time points and the differences in the means between the expert operator and the AI software and between the expert and inexperienced operators.

RESULTS

There was high reliability for the expert operator and AI measurements, and moderate reliability for the inexperienced operator measurements. There were some significant differences in the means produced by the AI software and the inexperienced operator compared with the expert operator.

CONCLUSION

Although AI is useful for cephalometric analysis, it should be used with caution because there are differences compared with analysis by humans.

AI in Orthodontics: Revolutionizing Diagnostics and Treatment Planning-A Comprehensive Review

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine has transformed various medical specialties, including orthodontics. AI has shown promising results in enhancing the accuracy of diagnoses, treatment planning, and predicting treatment outcomes. Its usage in orthodontic practices worldwide has increased with the availability of various AI applications and tools. This review explores the principles of AI, its applications in orthodontics, and its implementation in clinical practice. A comprehensive literature review was conducted, focusing on AI applications in dental diagnostics, cephalometric evaluation, skeletal age determination, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) evaluation, decision making, and patient telemonitoring. Due to study heterogeneity, no meta-analysis was possible. AI has demonstrated high efficacy in all these areas, but variations in performance and the need for manual supervision suggest caution in clinical settings. The complexity and unpredictability of AI algorithms call for cautious implementation and regular manual validation. Continuous AI learning, proper governance, and addressing privacy and ethical concerns are crucial for successful integration into orthodontic practice.

Objective evaluation of nonsurgical treatment of prominent ears: A systematic review

Background

The prominent ear is a type of congenital ear deformity that can be corrected by a variety of nonsurgical treatments, such as splinting and the taping method. However, there is no objective evaluation method that is universally accepted. The aim of this review is to evaluate objective measurement methods that are used in the available literature to analyze nonsurgical treatment of prominent ears.

Methods

A systematic review was performed in the MEDLINE and Embase databases in December 2022 and updated on April 2023 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematics and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Any study using objective measurements (continuous variables such as distance and angle) to evaluate the effect of nonsurgical treatment of prominent ears was included. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal for case series was used for quality assessment.

Results

A total of 286 studies were screened for eligibility, of which five articles were eligible for inclusion. All of the included studies were case series. The helix mastoid distance (HMD) is the most commonly used parameter to measure treatment outcome. Pinna and cartilage stiffness, length, and width were also used, but without clear statistical relevance. HMD was classified into grading groups (i.e. good, moderate, and poor) to evaluate the treatment's effect.

Conclusion

Based on the included studies, objective measurements are rarely used, and when used, they are largely heterogeneous. Although HMD was the most frequent measurement used, all studies used different definitions for the measurement and grouped subsequent outcomes differently. Automated algorithms, based on three-dimensional imaging, could be used for object measurements in the nonsurgical treatment of prominent ears.

Automatic identification of posteroanterior cephalometric landmarks using a novel deep learning algorithm: a comparative study with human experts

This study aimed to propose a fully automatic posteroanterior (PA) cephalometric landmark identification model using deep learning algorithms and compare its accuracy and reliability with those of expert human examiners. In total, 1032 PA cephalometric images were used for model training and validation. Two human expert examiners independently and manually identified 19 landmarks on 82 test set images. Similarly, the constructed artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm automatically identified the landmarks on the images. The mean radial error (MRE) and successful detection rate (SDR) were calculated to evaluate the performance of the model. The performance of the model was comparable with that of the examiners. The MRE of the model was 1.87 ± 1.53 mm, and the SDR was 34.7%, 67.5%, and 91.5% within error ranges of < 1.0, < 2.0, and < 4.0 mm, respectively. The sphenoid points and mastoid processes had the lowest MRE and highest SDR in auto-identification; the condyle points had the highest MRE and lowest SDR. Comparable with human examiners, the fully automatic PA cephalometric landmark identification model showed promising accuracy and reliability and can help clinicians perform cephalometric analysis more efficiently while saving time and effort. Future advancements in AI could further improve the model accuracy and efficiency.

Accuracy of automated 3D cephalometric landmarks by deep learning algorithms: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the accuracy of automated landmarking using deep learning in comparison with manual tracing for cephalometric analysis of 3D medical images.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, IEEE Xplore, Scopus and ArXiv electronic databases were searched. Selection criteria were: ex vivo and in vivo volumetric data images suitable for 3D landmarking (Problem), a minimum of five automated landmarking performed by deep learning method (Intervention), manual landmarking (Comparison), and mean accuracy, in mm, between manual and automated landmarking (Outcome). QUADAS-2 was adapted for quality analysis. Meta-analysis was performed on studies that reported as outcome mean values and standard deviation of the difference (error) between manual and automated landmarking. Linear regression plots were used to analyze correlations between mean accuracy and year of publication.

RESULTS

The initial electronic screening yielded 252 papers published between 2020 and 2022. A total of 15 studies were included for the qualitative synthesis, whereas 11 studies were used for the meta-analysis. Overall random effect model revealed a mean value of 2.44 mm, with a high heterogeneity (I² = 98.13%, τ² = 1.018, p-value < 0.001); risk of bias was high due to the presence of issues for several domains per study. Meta-regression indicated a significant relation between mean error and year of publication (p value = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Deep learning algorithms showed an excellent accuracy for automated 3D cephalometric landmarking. In the last two years promising algorithms have been developed and improvements in landmarks annotation accuracy have been done.