Reliability and time-based efficiency of artificial intelligence-based automatic digital model analysis system.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Jae-Hun Yu, Ji-Hoi Kim, Jing Liu, Utkarsh Mangal, Hee-Kap Ahn, Jung-Yul Cha
{"title":"Reliability and time-based efficiency of artificial intelligence-based automatic digital model analysis system.","authors":"Jae-Hun Yu, Ji-Hoi Kim, Jing Liu, Utkarsh Mangal, Hee-Kap Ahn, Jung-Yul Cha","doi":"10.1093/ejo/cjad032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the reliability, reproducibility, and time-based efficiency of automatic digital (AD) and manual digital (MD) model analyses using intraoral scan models.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Two examiners analysed 26 intraoral scanner records using MD and AD methods for orthodontic modelling. Tooth size reproducibility was confirmed using a Bland-Altman plot. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to compare the model analysis parameters (tooth size, sum of 12-teeth, Bolton analysis, arch width, arch perimeter, arch length discrepancy, and overjet/overbite) for each method, including the time taken for model analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The MD group exhibited a relatively larger spread of 95% agreement limits when compared with AD group. The standard deviations of repeated tooth measurements were 0.15 mm (MD group) and 0.08 mm (AD group). The mean difference values of the 12-tooth (1.80-2.38 mm) and arch perimeter (1.42-3.23 mm) for AD group was significantly (P < 0.001) larger than that for the MD group. The arch width, Bolton, and overjet/overbite were clinically insignificant. The overall mean time required for the measurements was 8.62 min and 0.56 min for the MD and AD groups, respectively.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Validation results may vary in different clinical cases because our evaluation was limited to mild-to-moderate crowding in the complete dentition.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Significant differences were observed between AD and MD groups. The AD method demonstrated reproducible analysis in a considerably reduced timeframe, along with a significant difference in measurements compared to the MD method. Therefore, AD analysis should not be interchanged with MD, and vice versa.</p>","PeriodicalId":11989,"journal":{"name":"European journal of orthodontics","volume":" ","pages":"712-721"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjad032","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the reliability, reproducibility, and time-based efficiency of automatic digital (AD) and manual digital (MD) model analyses using intraoral scan models.

Material and methods: Two examiners analysed 26 intraoral scanner records using MD and AD methods for orthodontic modelling. Tooth size reproducibility was confirmed using a Bland-Altman plot. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to compare the model analysis parameters (tooth size, sum of 12-teeth, Bolton analysis, arch width, arch perimeter, arch length discrepancy, and overjet/overbite) for each method, including the time taken for model analysis.

Results: The MD group exhibited a relatively larger spread of 95% agreement limits when compared with AD group. The standard deviations of repeated tooth measurements were 0.15 mm (MD group) and 0.08 mm (AD group). The mean difference values of the 12-tooth (1.80-2.38 mm) and arch perimeter (1.42-3.23 mm) for AD group was significantly (P < 0.001) larger than that for the MD group. The arch width, Bolton, and overjet/overbite were clinically insignificant. The overall mean time required for the measurements was 8.62 min and 0.56 min for the MD and AD groups, respectively.

Limitations: Validation results may vary in different clinical cases because our evaluation was limited to mild-to-moderate crowding in the complete dentition.

Conclusions: Significant differences were observed between AD and MD groups. The AD method demonstrated reproducible analysis in a considerably reduced timeframe, along with a significant difference in measurements compared to the MD method. Therefore, AD analysis should not be interchanged with MD, and vice versa.

基于人工智能的自动数字模型分析系统的可靠性和时效性。
目的:比较使用口腔内扫描模型的自动数字(AD)和手动数字(MD)模型分析的可靠性、再现性和基于时间的效率。材料和方法:两名检查员分析了26份口腔内扫描记录,使用MD和AD方法进行正畸建模。采用Bland-Altman图证实了牙齿大小的可重复性。采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验比较两种方法的模型分析参数(牙尺寸、12颗牙总数、Bolton分析、牙弓宽度、牙弓周长、牙弓长度差异、覆盖/覆盖咬合),包括模型分析所需时间。结果:与AD组相比,MD组表现出相对较大的95%一致性界限。重复测牙的标准差分别为0.15 mm (MD组)和0.08 mm (AD组)。AD组12牙(1.80 ~ 2.38 mm)和牙弓周长(1.42 ~ 3.23 mm)的平均差值显著大于MD组(P < 0.001)。牙弓宽度、博尔顿和牙合覆盖/牙合覆盖在临床上不显著。MD组和AD组测量所需的总体平均时间分别为8.62分钟和0.56分钟。局限性:验证结果在不同的临床病例中可能会有所不同,因为我们的评估仅限于整个牙列的轻度至中度拥挤。结论:AD组与MD组之间存在显著差异。与MD方法相比,AD方法在相当短的时间内证明了可重复性分析,并且测量结果有显著差异。因此,AD分析不应与MD交换,反之亦然。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European journal of orthodontics
European journal of orthodontics 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
71
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Orthodontics publishes papers of excellence on all aspects of orthodontics including craniofacial development and growth. The emphasis of the journal is on full research papers. Succinct and carefully prepared papers are favoured in terms of impact as well as readability.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信