AI Article Synopsis

  • This study evaluated the effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI) in deciding whether to extract teeth in orthodontic cases, emphasizing its accuracy in decision-making.
  • The researchers analyzed data from various databases and included six relevant studies, revealing mixed risk levels of bias among them.
  • While AI showed a promising overall accuracy rate of 0.87, the findings should be approached cautiously due to low certainty in the evidence, and AI should not replace human judgment in orthodontic decisions just yet.

Article Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to analyze the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for orthodontic tooth extraction decision-making.

Materials And Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: Orthodontic tooth extraction decision-making using AI presented promising accuracy but should be considered with caution due to the very low certainty of evidence.

Clinical Relevance: AI models for tooth extraction decision in orthodontics cannot yet be considered a substitute for a final human decision.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04742-0DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

tooth extraction
16
risk bias
16
accuracy artificial
8
artificial intelligence
8
extraction decision-making
8
orthodontic tooth
8
selection studies
8
unclear risk
8
model yielded
8
089 95%
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!