Does artificial intelligence predict orthognathic surgical outcomes better than conventional linear regression methods?

Ji-Ae Park, Jun-Ho Moon, Ju-Myung Lee, Sung Joo Cho, Byoung-Moo Seo, R. E. Donatelli, Shin-Jae Lee
{"title":"Does artificial intelligence predict orthognathic surgical outcomes better than conventional linear regression methods?","authors":"Ji-Ae Park, Jun-Ho Moon, Ju-Myung Lee, Sung Joo Cho, Byoung-Moo Seo, R. E. Donatelli, Shin-Jae Lee","doi":"10.2319/111423-756.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n To evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) model in predicting orthognathic surgical outcomes compared to conventional prediction methods.\n \n \n \n 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.\n \n \n \n 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.\n \n \n \n AI predictions did not always outperform conventional methods. A combination of both methods may be more effective in predicting orthognathic surgical outcomes.\n","PeriodicalId":503286,"journal":{"name":"The Angle Orthodontist","volume":" 15","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle Orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/111423-756.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

To evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) model in predicting orthognathic surgical outcomes compared to conventional prediction 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. 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. AI predictions did not always outperform conventional methods. A combination of both methods may be more effective in predicting orthognathic surgical outcomes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与传统的线性回归方法相比,人工智能是否能更好地预测正颌外科手术的结果?
与传统预测方法相比,评估人工智能(AI)模型在预测正颌外科手术结果方面的性能。 研究收集了 705 名接受外科手术和正畸联合治疗的患者的术前和治疗后侧头像。预测因素包括 254 个输入变量,包括术前骨骼和软组织特征以及正颌外科手术重新定位的程度。结果是术后 32 个软组织地标的 64 个直角坐标变量。传统预测模型采用了两种线性回归方法:多变量多元线性回归(MLR)和多变量偏最小二乘法(PLS)。人工智能预测模型基于 TabNet 深度神经网络。对预测精度进行了比较,并分析了影响因素。 总体而言,MLR 的预测性能最差。在 32 个软组织地标中,PLS 对上唇上方的 16 个软组织地标显示出更准确的预测结果,而人工智能对位于下颌骨下缘和颈部的 6 个地标显示出更高的预测结果。其余 10 个地标在人工智能和 PLS 预测模型之间没有明显差异。 人工智能预测并不总是优于传统方法。在预测正颌外科手术结果时,两种方法的结合可能会更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Enhanced pendulum appliance utilizing temporary anchorage device-based Nance arch and modified springs for optimized molar distalization control: a case report Orthodontic treatment of a middle-aged patient with periodontally compromised dentition accompanied by pathologic tooth migration Evaluation of anchorage loss after en masse retraction in orthodontic patients with maxillary protrusion using friction vs frictionless mechanics: randomized clinical trial Vertical and transverse treatment effects of Invisalign First system compared to Hyrax maxillary expanders with fixed appliances in mixed dentition patients Accuracy of soy-based resins for dental 3D printing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1