» Articles » PMID: 39230019

Does Artificial Intelligence Predict Orthognathic Surgical Outcomes Better Than Conventional Linear Regression Methods?

Overview
Journal Angle Orthod
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2024 Sep 4
PMID 39230019
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) model in predicting orthognathic surgical outcomes compared to conventional prediction methods.

Materials And Methods: Preoperative and posttreatment lateral cephalograms from 705 patients who underwent combined surgical-orthodontic treatment were collected. Predictors included 254 input variables, including preoperative skeletal and soft-tissue characteristics, as well as the extent of orthognathic surgical repositioning. Outcomes were 64 Cartesian coordinate variables of 32 soft-tissue landmarks after surgery. Conventional prediction models were built applying two linear regression methods: multivariate multiple linear regression (MLR) and multivariate partial least squares algorithm (PLS). The AI-based prediction model was based on the TabNet deep neural network. The prediction accuracy was compared, and the influencing factors were analyzed.

Results: In general, MLR demonstrated the poorest predictive performance. Among 32 soft-tissue landmarks, PLS showed more accurate prediction results in 16 soft-tissue landmarks above the upper lip, whereas AI outperformed in six landmarks located in the lower border of the mandible and neck area. The remaining 10 landmarks presented no significant difference between AI and PLS prediction models.

Conclusions: AI predictions did not always outperform conventional methods. A combination of both methods may be more effective in predicting orthognathic surgical outcomes.

Citing Articles

Craniofacial growth prediction models based on cephalometric landmarks in Korean and American children.

Kim J, Moon J, Roseth J, Suh H, Oh H, Lee S Angle Orthod. 2025; 95(2):219-226.

PMID: 39799965 PMC: 11842116. DOI: 10.2319/052324-399.1.


Evaluation of automated photograph-cephalogram image integration using artificial intelligence models.

Moon J, Kim M, Cho S, Ko D, Hwang H, Park J Angle Orthod. 2024; 94(6):595-601.

PMID: 39180503 PMC: 11493416. DOI: 10.2319/010124-1.1.


Factors influencing the development of artificial intelligence in orthodontics.

Lee J, Moon J, Park J, Kim J, Lee S Orthod Craniofac Res. 2024; 27 Suppl 2:6-12.

PMID: 38712670 PMC: 11654351. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12806.

References
1.
Knoops P, Borghi A, Ruggiero F, Badiali G, Bianchi A, Marchetti C . A novel soft tissue prediction methodology for orthognathic surgery based on probabilistic finite element modelling. PLoS One. 2018; 13(5):e0197209. PMC: 5942840. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197209. View

2.
Mobarak K, Espeland L, Krogstad O, Lyberg T . Soft tissue profile changes following mandibular advancement surgery: predictability and long-term outcome. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 119(4):353-67. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2001.112258. View

3.
Hwang H, Moon J, Kim M, Donatelli R, Lee S . Evaluation of automated cephalometric analysis based on the latest deep learning method. Angle Orthod. 2021; 91(3):329-335. PMC: 8084461. DOI: 10.2319/021220-100.1. View

4.
Donatelli R, Lee S . How to test validity in orthodontic research: a mixed dentition analysis example. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 147(2):272-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.09.021. View

5.
Hwang H, Park J, Moon J, Yu Y, Kim H, Her S . Automated identification of cephalometric landmarks: . Angle Orthod. 2019; 90(1):69-76. PMC: 8087057. DOI: 10.2319/022019-129.1. View