School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goiás, Avenida Universitária esquina com 1a Avenida, Goiânia, S/N. Zip Code: 74605-220, Brazil.
Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goiás, Avenida Universitária esquina com 1a Avenida, Goiânia, S/N. Zip Code: 74605-220, Brazil.
Clin Oral Investig. 2022 Dec;26(12):6893-6905. doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04742-0. Epub 2022 Oct 21.
This study aimed to analyze the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for orthodontic tooth extraction decision-making.
PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus, LIVIVO, Computers & Applied Science, ACM Digital Library, Compendex, and gray literature (OpenGrey, ProQuest, and Google Scholar) were electronically searched. Three independent reviewers selected the studies and extracted and analyzed the data. Risk of bias, methodological quality, and certainty of evidence were assessed by QUADAS-2, checklist for AI research, and GRADE, respectively.
The search identified 1810 studies. After 2 phases of selection, six studies were included, showing an unclear risk of bias of patient selection. Two studies showed a high risk of bias in the index test, while two others presented an unclear risk of bias in the diagnostic test. Data were pooled in a random model and yielded an accuracy value of 0.87 (95% CI = 0.75-0.96) for all studies, 0.89 (95% CI = 0.70-1.00) for multilayer perceptron, and 0.88 (95% CI = 0.73-0.98) for back propagation models. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of the multilayer perceptron model yielded 0.84 (95% CI = 0.58-1.00), 0.89 (95% CI = 0.74-0.98), and 0.92 (95% CI = 0.72-1.00) scores, respectively. Sagittal discrepancy, upper crowding, and protrusion showed the highest ranks weighted in the models.
Orthodontic tooth extraction decision-making using AI presented promising accuracy but should be considered with caution due to the very low certainty of evidence.
AI models for tooth extraction decision in orthodontics cannot yet be considered a substitute for a final human decision.
本研究旨在分析人工智能(AI)在正畸拔牙决策中的准确性。
通过电子检索 PubMed/MEDLINE、EMBASE、LILACS、Web of Science、Scopus、LIVIVO、Computers & Applied Science、ACM Digital Library、Compendex 和灰色文献(OpenGrey、ProQuest 和 Google Scholar)。由 3 位独立评审员选择研究并提取和分析数据。分别采用 QUADAS-2、AI 研究检查表和 GRADE 评估偏倚风险、方法学质量和证据确定性。
搜索共确定了 1810 项研究。经过 2 个阶段的选择,纳入了 6 项研究,这些研究显示出患者选择偏倚风险不明确。其中 2 项研究的指数试验存在高偏倚风险,而另外 2 项研究的诊断试验存在偏倚风险不明确。将数据汇总到随机模型中,得到所有研究的准确率为 0.87(95%CI=0.75-0.96),多层感知机为 0.89(95%CI=0.70-1.00),反向传播模型为 0.88(95%CI=0.73-0.98)。多层感知机模型的敏感性、特异性和曲线下面积分别为 0.84(95%CI=0.58-1.00)、0.89(95%CI=0.74-0.98)和 0.92(95%CI=0.72-1.00)。矢状不调、上拥挤和突出显示为模型中权重最高的特征。
基于 AI 的正畸拔牙决策具有较高的准确性,但由于证据确定性非常低,应谨慎考虑。
AI 模型在正畸拔牙决策中尚不能被视为最终人工决策的替代品。