2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.05.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of deep learning and convolutional neural network algorithms accuracy for detecting and predicting anatomical landmarks on 2D lateral cephalometric images: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The synergistic utilization of artificial intelligence and FEA studies holds the potential to unlock valuable insights into the practical applications of dental implants. 37 38 39 40 41 Further long-term clinical studies to examine the effectiveness of NRC are needed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The synergistic utilization of artificial intelligence and FEA studies holds the potential to unlock valuable insights into the practical applications of dental implants. 37 38 39 40 41 Further long-term clinical studies to examine the effectiveness of NRC are needed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The simplicity of the technique, low risk and limited side effects have had beneficial therapeutic effects, and the injection technique is accepted by patients (18). There have been tremendous advancements in the field of artificial intelligence that can help detect anatomic landmarks (19), or help with oral diagnosing and dental treatment (20). In most cases, surgery seems to be an invasive method compared to the limited symptoms experienced by the patient.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Meta-analyses have generally shown high accuracy in identifying cephalometric landmarks [83][84][85][86][87][88][89]. However, the results are strongly dependent on predefined thresholds, with lower accuracies reported at a 2 mm threshold [83,85,88].…”
Section: Cephalometric Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Meta-analyses have generally shown high accuracy in identifying cephalometric landmarks [83][84][85][86][87][88][89]. However, the results are strongly dependent on predefined thresholds, with lower accuracies reported at a 2 mm threshold [83,85,88]. Serafin et al [89] conducted a study in 2023 and reported a mean difference of 2.44 mm between three-dimensional (3D) automated and manual landmarking.…”
Section: Cephalometric Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%