• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

正畸治疗结果预测性能的人工智能与传统方法比较。

Orthodontic treatment outcome predictive performance differences between artificial intelligence and conventional methods.

出版信息

Angle Orthod. 2024 Sep 1;94(5):557-565. doi: 10.2319/111823-767.1.

DOI:10.2319/111823-767.1
PMID:39230022
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11363978/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate an artificial intelligence (AI) model in predicting soft tissue and alveolar bone changes following orthodontic treatment and compare the predictive performance of the AI model with conventional prediction models.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 1774 lateral cephalograms of 887 adult patients who had undergone orthodontic treatment were collected. Patients who had orthognathic surgery were excluded. On each cephalogram, 78 landmarks were detected using PIPNet-based AI. Prediction models consisted of 132 predictor variables and 88 outcome variables. Predictor variables were demographics (age, sex), clinical (treatment time, premolar extraction), and Cartesian coordinates of the 64 anatomic landmarks. Outcome variables were Cartesian coordinates of the 22 soft tissue and 22 hard tissue landmarks after orthodontic treatment. The AI prediction model was based on the TabNet deep neural network. Two conventional statistical methods, multivariate multiple linear regression (MMLR) and partial least squares regression (PLSR), were each implemented for comparison. Prediction accuracy among the methods was compared.

RESULTS

Overall, MMLR demonstrated the most accurate results, while AI was least accurate. AI showed superior predictions in only 5 of the 44 anatomic landmarks, all of which were soft tissue landmarks inferior to menton to the terminal point of the neck.

CONCLUSIONS

When predicting changes following orthodontic treatment, AI was not as effective as conventional statistical methods. However, AI had an outstanding advantage in predicting soft tissue landmarks with substantial variability. Overall, results may indicate the need for a hybrid prediction model that combines conventional and AI methods.

摘要

目的

评估一种人工智能(AI)模型在预测正畸治疗后软组织和牙槽骨变化方面的能力,并比较 AI 模型与传统预测模型的预测性能。

材料和方法

共收集了 887 名成年正畸患者的 1774 侧头颅侧位片。排除接受正颌手术的患者。在每张头颅侧位片上,使用基于 PIPNet 的 AI 检测了 78 个标志点。预测模型包含 132 个预测变量和 88 个结果变量。预测变量包括人口统计学特征(年龄、性别)、临床特征(治疗时间、前磨牙拔除)和 64 个解剖标志点的笛卡尔坐标。结果变量为正畸治疗后 22 个软组织和 22 个硬组织标志点的笛卡尔坐标。AI 预测模型基于 TabNet 深度神经网络。为了比较,还分别实施了两种传统的统计方法,多元线性回归(MMLR)和偏最小二乘回归(PLSR)。比较了这些方法的预测准确性。

结果

总体而言,MMLR 显示出最准确的结果,而 AI 的准确性最低。AI 仅在 44 个解剖标志点中的 5 个方面表现出较好的预测结果,这 5 个标志点均为软组织标志点,位于颏下点至颈端点之间。

结论

在预测正畸治疗后的变化时,AI 不如传统的统计方法有效。然而,AI 在预测具有较大变异性的软组织标志点方面具有显著优势。总体而言,结果可能表明需要一种结合传统和 AI 方法的混合预测模型。

相似文献

1
Orthodontic treatment outcome predictive performance differences between artificial intelligence and conventional methods.正畸治疗结果预测性能的人工智能与传统方法比较。
Angle Orthod. 2024 Sep 1;94(5):557-565. doi: 10.2319/111823-767.1.
2
Does artificial intelligence predict orthognathic surgical outcomes better than conventional linear regression methods?人工智能预测正颌手术结果是否优于传统线性回归方法?
Angle Orthod. 2024 Sep 1;94(5):549-556. doi: 10.2319/111423-756.1.
3
Comparison of individualized facial growth prediction models based on the partial least squares and artificial intelligence.基于偏最小二乘法和人工智能的个体化面部生长预测模型比较。
Angle Orthod. 2024 Mar 1;94(2):207-215. doi: 10.2319/031723-181.1.
4
Evaluation of automated photograph-cephalogram image integration using artificial intelligence models.利用人工智能模型评估自动拍摄的头颅 X 光片图像整合。
Angle Orthod. 2024 Nov 1;94(6):595-601. doi: 10.2319/010124-1.1.
5
Development of novel artificial intelligence systems to predict facial morphology after orthognathic surgery and orthodontic treatment in Japanese patients.开发新型人工智能系统,以预测日本患者接受正颌手术和正畸治疗后面部形态。
Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 4;11(1):15853. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-95002-w.
6
Accuracy of computer-aided prediction in soft tissue changes after orthodontic treatment.正畸治疗后软组织变化的计算机辅助预测的准确性。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Dec;156(6):823-831. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.11.021.
7
Accuracy of artificial intelligence-assisted growth prediction in skeletal Class I preadolescent patients using serial lateral cephalograms for a 2-year growth interval.利用 2 年生长间隔的系列侧位头颅侧位片预测骨骼 I 类青春期前患者生长的人工智能准确性。
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2024 Aug;27(4):535-543. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12764. Epub 2024 Feb 6.
8
Facial soft-tissue shape changes after fixed edgewise treatment with premolar extraction in individual artificial-intelligence-classified facial profile patterns.正畸治疗后,在前磨牙拔除的情况下,根据个体的人工智能分类的面型模式,面部软组织形状会发生变化。
BMC Oral Health. 2024 Jun 27;24(1):740. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04512-2.
9
Automated identification of cephalometric landmarks:自动识别头影测量标志点:
Angle Orthod. 2020 Jan;90(1):69-76. doi: 10.2319/022019-129.1. Epub 2019 Jul 22.
10
Evaluation of an individualized facial growth prediction model based on the multivariate partial least squares method.基于多元偏最小二乘法的个体化面部生长预测模型评估。
Angle Orthod. 2022 Nov 1;92(6):705-713. doi: 10.2319/110121-807.1.

引用本文的文献

1
AI-Driven Advancements in Orthodontics for Precision and Patient Outcomes.人工智能驱动的正畸学进步实现精准治疗与良好患者预后。
Dent J (Basel). 2025 Apr 30;13(5):198. doi: 10.3390/dj13050198.
2
Craniofacial growth prediction models based on cephalometric landmarks in Korean and American children.基于韩国和美国儿童头影测量标志点的颅面生长预测模型。
Angle Orthod. 2025 Mar 1;95(2):219-226. doi: 10.2319/052324-399.1.
3
Evaluation of automated photograph-cephalogram image integration using artificial intelligence models.利用人工智能模型评估自动拍摄的头颅 X 光片图像整合。
Angle Orthod. 2024 Nov 1;94(6):595-601. doi: 10.2319/010124-1.1.
4
Factors influencing the development of artificial intelligence in orthodontics.影响正畸学中人工智能发展的因素。
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2024 Dec;27 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):6-12. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12806. Epub 2024 May 7.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparison of individualized facial growth prediction models based on the partial least squares and artificial intelligence.基于偏最小二乘法和人工智能的个体化面部生长预测模型比较。
Angle Orthod. 2024 Mar 1;94(2):207-215. doi: 10.2319/031723-181.1.
2
Evaluation of an individualized facial growth prediction model based on the multivariate partial least squares method.基于多元偏最小二乘法的个体化面部生长预测模型评估。
Angle Orthod. 2022 Nov 1;92(6):705-713. doi: 10.2319/110121-807.1.
3
Deep Learning-Based Prediction of the 3D Postorthodontic Facial Changes.基于深度学习的正畸后面部三维变化预测。
J Dent Res. 2022 Oct;101(11):1372-1379. doi: 10.1177/00220345221106676. Epub 2022 Jun 30.
4
Automated landmark identification on cone-beam computed tomography: Accuracy and reliability.锥束计算机断层扫描上的自动地标识别:准确性与可靠性。
Angle Orthod. 2022 Sep 1;92(5):642-654. doi: 10.2319/122121-928.1. Epub 2022 Jun 2.
5
Development of novel artificial intelligence systems to predict facial morphology after orthognathic surgery and orthodontic treatment in Japanese patients.开发新型人工智能系统,以预测日本患者接受正颌手术和正畸治疗后面部形态。
Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 4;11(1):15853. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-95002-w.
6
Evaluation of automated cephalometric analysis based on the latest deep learning method.基于最新深度学习方法的自动头影测量分析评估。
Angle Orthod. 2021 May 1;91(3):329-335. doi: 10.2319/021220-100.1.
7
How much deep learning is enough for automatic identification to be reliable?深度学习达到多少才能保证自动识别的可靠性?
Angle Orthod. 2020 Nov 1;90(6):823-830. doi: 10.2319/021920-116.1.
8
Evaluation of an automated superimposition method for computer-aided cephalometrics.自动叠加法在计算机辅助头影测量中的评价。
Angle Orthod. 2020 May 1;90(3):390-396. doi: 10.2319/071319-469.1.
9
Automated identification of cephalometric landmarks:自动识别头影测量标志点:
Angle Orthod. 2020 Jan;90(1):69-76. doi: 10.2319/022019-129.1. Epub 2019 Jul 22.
10
Automated identification of cephalometric landmarks: .自动识别头影测量标志点:.
Angle Orthod. 2019 Nov;89(6):903-909. doi: 10.2319/022019-127.1. Epub 2019 Jul 8.