Comparative Analysis of 3D Cephalometry Provided with Artificial Intelligence and Manual Tracing

Objectives: To compare 3D cephalometric analysis performed using AI with that conducted manually by a specialist orthodontist. Methods: The CBCT scans (a field of view of 15 × 15 cm) used in the study were obtained from 30 consecutive patients, aged 18 to 50. The 3D cephalometric analysis was conduc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Zurab Khabadze, Oleg Mordanov, Ekaterina Shilyaeva
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2024-11-01
Series:Diagnostics
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/14/22/2524
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1846153776918953984
author Zurab Khabadze
Oleg Mordanov
Ekaterina Shilyaeva
author_facet Zurab Khabadze
Oleg Mordanov
Ekaterina Shilyaeva
author_sort Zurab Khabadze
collection DOAJ
description Objectives: To compare 3D cephalometric analysis performed using AI with that conducted manually by a specialist orthodontist. Methods: The CBCT scans (a field of view of 15 × 15 cm) used in the study were obtained from 30 consecutive patients, aged 18 to 50. The 3D cephalometric analysis was conducted using two methods. The first method involved manual tracing performed with the Invivo 6 software (Anatomage Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA). The second method involved using AI for cephalometric measurements as part of an orthodontic report generated by the Diagnocat system (Diagnocat Ltd., San Francisco, CA, USA). Results: A statistically significant difference within one standard deviation of the parameter was found in the following measurements: SNA, SNB, and the left interincisal angle. Statistically significant differences within two standard deviations were noted in the following measurements: the right and left gonial angles, the left upper incisor, and the right lower incisor. No statistically significant differences were observed beyond two standard deviations. Conclusions: AI in the form of Diagnocat proved to be effective in assessing the mandibular growth direction, defining the skeletal class, and estimating the overbite, overjet, and Wits parameter.
format Article
id doaj-art-1f328dbc74594dba89ade66a2bc0e9ec
institution Kabale University
issn 2075-4418
language English
publishDate 2024-11-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Diagnostics
spelling doaj-art-1f328dbc74594dba89ade66a2bc0e9ec2024-11-26T17:59:45ZengMDPI AGDiagnostics2075-44182024-11-011422252410.3390/diagnostics14222524Comparative Analysis of 3D Cephalometry Provided with Artificial Intelligence and Manual TracingZurab Khabadze0Oleg Mordanov1Ekaterina Shilyaeva2Department of Therapeutic Dentistry, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia Named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University), 6 Miklukho-Maklaya St., 117198 Moscow, RussiaDepartment of Therapeutic Dentistry, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia Named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University), 6 Miklukho-Maklaya St., 117198 Moscow, RussiaDepartment of Therapeutic Dentistry, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia Named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University), 6 Miklukho-Maklaya St., 117198 Moscow, RussiaObjectives: To compare 3D cephalometric analysis performed using AI with that conducted manually by a specialist orthodontist. Methods: The CBCT scans (a field of view of 15 × 15 cm) used in the study were obtained from 30 consecutive patients, aged 18 to 50. The 3D cephalometric analysis was conducted using two methods. The first method involved manual tracing performed with the Invivo 6 software (Anatomage Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA). The second method involved using AI for cephalometric measurements as part of an orthodontic report generated by the Diagnocat system (Diagnocat Ltd., San Francisco, CA, USA). Results: A statistically significant difference within one standard deviation of the parameter was found in the following measurements: SNA, SNB, and the left interincisal angle. Statistically significant differences within two standard deviations were noted in the following measurements: the right and left gonial angles, the left upper incisor, and the right lower incisor. No statistically significant differences were observed beyond two standard deviations. Conclusions: AI in the form of Diagnocat proved to be effective in assessing the mandibular growth direction, defining the skeletal class, and estimating the overbite, overjet, and Wits parameter.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/14/22/2524artificial intelligence3D cephalometryDiagnocat
spellingShingle Zurab Khabadze
Oleg Mordanov
Ekaterina Shilyaeva
Comparative Analysis of 3D Cephalometry Provided with Artificial Intelligence and Manual Tracing
Diagnostics
artificial intelligence
3D cephalometry
Diagnocat
title Comparative Analysis of 3D Cephalometry Provided with Artificial Intelligence and Manual Tracing
title_full Comparative Analysis of 3D Cephalometry Provided with Artificial Intelligence and Manual Tracing
title_fullStr Comparative Analysis of 3D Cephalometry Provided with Artificial Intelligence and Manual Tracing
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Analysis of 3D Cephalometry Provided with Artificial Intelligence and Manual Tracing
title_short Comparative Analysis of 3D Cephalometry Provided with Artificial Intelligence and Manual Tracing
title_sort comparative analysis of 3d cephalometry provided with artificial intelligence and manual tracing
topic artificial intelligence
3D cephalometry
Diagnocat
url https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/14/22/2524
work_keys_str_mv AT zurabkhabadze comparativeanalysisof3dcephalometryprovidedwithartificialintelligenceandmanualtracing
AT olegmordanov comparativeanalysisof3dcephalometryprovidedwithartificialintelligenceandmanualtracing
AT ekaterinashilyaeva comparativeanalysisof3dcephalometryprovidedwithartificialintelligenceandmanualtracing