Jae-Hun Yu, Ji-Hoi Kim, Jing Liu, Utkarsh Mangal, Hee-Kap Ahn, Jung-Yul Cha
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Reliability and time-based efficiency of artificial intelligence-based automatic digital model analysis system.
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.
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.