使用标准化临床照片诊断牙齿和咬合参数的人工智能准确性。

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Matthew Vaughan , Samer Mheissen , Martyn Cobourne , Farooq Ahmed
{"title":"使用标准化临床照片诊断牙齿和咬合参数的人工智能准确性。","authors":"Matthew Vaughan ,&nbsp;Samer Mheissen ,&nbsp;Martyn Cobourne ,&nbsp;Farooq Ahmed","doi":"10.1016/j.ajodo.2025.01.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>SmileMate (SmileMate, Dental Monitoring SAS, Paris, France) is an artificial intelligence (AI)-based Web site that uses intraoral photographs to assess patients’ dental and orthodontic parameters and provide a report. This study aimed to investigate the ability of an AI assessment tool (SmileMate) for orthodontic and dental parameters.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A United Kingdom-based prospective clinical study enrolled 35 participants in the study. The participants’ occlusal and dental parameters were assessed, and standardized orthodontic photographs were taken and uploaded to the SmileMate Web site to produce an AI-generated assessment. A total of 19 parameters were evaluated: 9 orthodontic parameters and 10 dental parameters covering both soft and hard tissues. A crosstabulation for AI and clinician assessments was reported using Fisher exact tests. Cohen’s kappa was calculated to provide an agreement between the gold standard (clinician assessment) and SmileMate (AI assessment). Finally, the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve were calculated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Statistically significant differences between a direct in-person assessment and the SmileMate AI assessment were noted across 9 of the 19 parameters (<em>P</em> &lt;0.05, Fisher exact test). The overall kappa value was fair (0.29), with a variety of agreements between AI and clinician assessments; the level of agreement ranged from poor in 2 parameters (lateral open bite and teeth fracture) to almost perfect for missing and retained teeth. The level of agreement ranged from slight to moderate for the other variables in this study. The overall sensitivity of the AI-generated assessments was 72%, and the specificity was 54%. The specificity of AI was very low for gingivitis and oral hygiene, indicating a very high probability of false-positive findings for those parameters.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The overall agreement between SmileMate and the clinician’s assessment was slight to moderate. AI-generated assessments are inadequate for evaluating malocclusion.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50806,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics","volume":"167 6","pages":"Pages 733-740"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence for dental and occlusal parameters using standardized clinical photographs\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Vaughan ,&nbsp;Samer Mheissen ,&nbsp;Martyn Cobourne ,&nbsp;Farooq Ahmed\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajodo.2025.01.017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>SmileMate (SmileMate, Dental Monitoring SAS, Paris, France) is an artificial intelligence (AI)-based Web site that uses intraoral photographs to assess patients’ dental and orthodontic parameters and provide a report. This study aimed to investigate the ability of an AI assessment tool (SmileMate) for orthodontic and dental parameters.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A United Kingdom-based prospective clinical study enrolled 35 participants in the study. The participants’ occlusal and dental parameters were assessed, and standardized orthodontic photographs were taken and uploaded to the SmileMate Web site to produce an AI-generated assessment. A total of 19 parameters were evaluated: 9 orthodontic parameters and 10 dental parameters covering both soft and hard tissues. A crosstabulation for AI and clinician assessments was reported using Fisher exact tests. Cohen’s kappa was calculated to provide an agreement between the gold standard (clinician assessment) and SmileMate (AI assessment). Finally, the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve were calculated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Statistically significant differences between a direct in-person assessment and the SmileMate AI assessment were noted across 9 of the 19 parameters (<em>P</em> &lt;0.05, Fisher exact test). The overall kappa value was fair (0.29), with a variety of agreements between AI and clinician assessments; the level of agreement ranged from poor in 2 parameters (lateral open bite and teeth fracture) to almost perfect for missing and retained teeth. The level of agreement ranged from slight to moderate for the other variables in this study. The overall sensitivity of the AI-generated assessments was 72%, and the specificity was 54%. The specificity of AI was very low for gingivitis and oral hygiene, indicating a very high probability of false-positive findings for those parameters.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The overall agreement between SmileMate and the clinician’s assessment was slight to moderate. AI-generated assessments are inadequate for evaluating malocclusion.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics\",\"volume\":\"167 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages 733-740\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088954062500054X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088954062500054X","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

简介:SmileMate (SmileMate, Dental Monitoring SAS, Paris, France)是一个基于人工智能(AI)的网站,它使用口腔内照片来评估患者的牙齿和正畸参数,并提供报告。本研究旨在研究人工智能评估工具(SmileMate)对正畸和牙齿参数的评估能力。方法:一项基于英国的前瞻性临床研究招募了35名参与者。评估参与者的咬合和牙齿参数,并拍摄标准化的正畸照片并上传到SmileMate网站上,以产生人工智能生成的评估。共评估了19个参数:9个正畸参数和10个涵盖软硬组织的牙齿参数。使用Fisher精确检验报告了人工智能和临床医生评估的交叉对照。计算Cohen的kappa是为了提供黄金标准(临床医生评估)和SmileMate(人工智能评估)之间的一致性。最后计算灵敏度、特异度和曲线下面积。结果:在19个参数中的9个中,直接面对面评估和SmileMate AI评估之间存在统计学上的显著差异(P结论:SmileMate与临床医生评估之间的总体一致性为轻微至中度。人工智能生成的评估不足以评估错牙合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence for dental and occlusal parameters using standardized clinical photographs

Introduction

SmileMate (SmileMate, Dental Monitoring SAS, Paris, France) is an artificial intelligence (AI)-based Web site that uses intraoral photographs to assess patients’ dental and orthodontic parameters and provide a report. This study aimed to investigate the ability of an AI assessment tool (SmileMate) for orthodontic and dental parameters.

Methods

A United Kingdom-based prospective clinical study enrolled 35 participants in the study. The participants’ occlusal and dental parameters were assessed, and standardized orthodontic photographs were taken and uploaded to the SmileMate Web site to produce an AI-generated assessment. A total of 19 parameters were evaluated: 9 orthodontic parameters and 10 dental parameters covering both soft and hard tissues. A crosstabulation for AI and clinician assessments was reported using Fisher exact tests. Cohen’s kappa was calculated to provide an agreement between the gold standard (clinician assessment) and SmileMate (AI assessment). Finally, the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve were calculated.

Results

Statistically significant differences between a direct in-person assessment and the SmileMate AI assessment were noted across 9 of the 19 parameters (P <0.05, Fisher exact test). The overall kappa value was fair (0.29), with a variety of agreements between AI and clinician assessments; the level of agreement ranged from poor in 2 parameters (lateral open bite and teeth fracture) to almost perfect for missing and retained teeth. The level of agreement ranged from slight to moderate for the other variables in this study. The overall sensitivity of the AI-generated assessments was 72%, and the specificity was 54%. The specificity of AI was very low for gingivitis and oral hygiene, indicating a very high probability of false-positive findings for those parameters.

Conclusions

The overall agreement between SmileMate and the clinician’s assessment was slight to moderate. AI-generated assessments are inadequate for evaluating malocclusion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
13.30%
发文量
432
审稿时长
66 days
期刊介绍: Published for more than 100 years, the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics remains the leading orthodontic resource. It is the official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, the American Board of Orthodontics, and the College of Diplomates of the American Board of Orthodontics. Each month its readers have access to original peer-reviewed articles that examine all phases of orthodontic treatment. Illustrated throughout, the publication includes tables, color photographs, and statistical data. Coverage includes successful diagnostic procedures, imaging techniques, bracket and archwire materials, extraction and impaction concerns, orthognathic surgery, TMJ disorders, removable appliances, and adult therapy.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信