Tarek ElShebiny, Johana Cortés-Mercado, Neda Stefanovic, Juan Martín Palomo
{"title":"Comparison Between Direct, Virtual Aided by Clinician and Artificial Intelligence Bonding Techniques in Orthodontics.","authors":"Tarek ElShebiny, Johana Cortés-Mercado, Neda Stefanovic, Juan Martín Palomo","doi":"10.1111/ocr.70032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study was to determine if there are any clinically significant differences between direct, virtual indirect, and artificial intelligence (AI) bonding techniques.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This in vivo study analysed 840 teeth selected from 14 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment with full fixed appliances. Anatomical superimpositions were performed, and data were collected as both numerical values and colour-coded deviation maps to assess the differences between direct, AI, and virtual indirect bonding techniques.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intraclass correlation coefficient test showed good correlation (0.894). The Kruskal-Wallis comparison showed a statistically significant difference when comparing direct to virtual indirect and direct to AI. Descriptive statistics showed 4 values with clinically significant differences when comparing direct to virtual indirect. Descriptive statistics showed 3 values with clinically significant differences when comparing direct to AI. Root mean square (RMS) discrepancies exceeding 0.50 mm were found in four tooth types (AI vs. Direct) and three (Clinician vs. Direct).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found statistically and clinically significant differences between AI and virtual indirect when compared to direct bonding. With our data, we could infer that if we compare AI versus virtual indirect, there might not be any clinically significant differences since the differences between them fall below 0.25 mm.</p>","PeriodicalId":19652,"journal":{"name":"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.70032","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine if there are any clinically significant differences between direct, virtual indirect, and artificial intelligence (AI) bonding techniques.
Materials and methods: This in vivo study analysed 840 teeth selected from 14 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment with full fixed appliances. Anatomical superimpositions were performed, and data were collected as both numerical values and colour-coded deviation maps to assess the differences between direct, AI, and virtual indirect bonding techniques.
Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient test showed good correlation (0.894). The Kruskal-Wallis comparison showed a statistically significant difference when comparing direct to virtual indirect and direct to AI. Descriptive statistics showed 4 values with clinically significant differences when comparing direct to virtual indirect. Descriptive statistics showed 3 values with clinically significant differences when comparing direct to AI. Root mean square (RMS) discrepancies exceeding 0.50 mm were found in four tooth types (AI vs. Direct) and three (Clinician vs. Direct).
Conclusions: We found statistically and clinically significant differences between AI and virtual indirect when compared to direct bonding. With our data, we could infer that if we compare AI versus virtual indirect, there might not be any clinically significant differences since the differences between them fall below 0.25 mm.
目的：本研究的目的是确定直接、虚拟间接和人工智能（AI）连接技术之间是否存在临床显著差异。材料和方法：这项体内研究分析了从14名接受全固定矫治器正畸治疗的患者中选择的840颗牙齿。进行解剖叠加，并收集数据作为数值和颜色编码的偏差图，以评估直接，人工智能和虚拟间接连接技术之间的差异。结果：类内相关系数检验显示相关性较好（0.894）。Kruskal-Wallis对比显示，在直接与虚拟、间接与直接与人工智能进行比较时，统计学上存在显著差异。描述性统计显示，直接与虚拟间接比较有4个值有临床显著性差异。描述性统计显示，与人工智能直接比较，有3个值有临床显著差异。四种牙齿类型（AI vs. Direct）和三种（Clinician vs. Direct）的均方根（RMS）差异超过0.50 mm。结论：与直接连接相比，我们发现AI和虚拟间接连接在统计学和临床上存在显著差异。根据我们的数据，我们可以推断，如果我们比较人工智能和虚拟间接，可能没有任何临床显着差异，因为它们之间的差异低于0.25 mm。
期刊介绍：
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research - Genes, Growth and Development is published to serve its readers as an international forum for the presentation and critical discussion of issues pertinent to the advancement of the specialty of orthodontics and the evidence-based knowledge of craniofacial growth and development. This forum is based on scientifically supported information, but also includes minority and conflicting opinions.
The objective of the journal is to facilitate effective communication between the research community and practicing clinicians. Original papers of high scientific quality that report the findings of clinical trials, clinical epidemiology, and novel therapeutic or diagnostic approaches are appropriate submissions. Similarly, we welcome papers in genetics, developmental biology, syndromology, surgery, speech and hearing, and other biomedical disciplines related to clinical orthodontics and normal and abnormal craniofacial growth and development. In addition to original and basic research, the journal publishes concise reviews, case reports of substantial value, invited essays, letters, and announcements.
The journal is published quarterly. The review of submitted papers will be coordinated by the editor and members of the editorial board. It is policy to review manuscripts within 3 to 4 weeks of receipt and to publish within 3 to 6 months of acceptance.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
