Development of intra-oral automated landmark recognition (ALR) for dental and occlusal outcome measurements

BACKGROUND: Previous studies embracing digital technology and automated methods of scoring dental arch relationships have shown that such technology is valid and accurate. To date, however there is no published literature on artificial intelligence and machine learning to completely automate the process of dental landmark recognition. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop and evaluate a fully automated system and software tool for the identification of landmarks on human teeth using geometric computing, image segmenting, and machine learning technology. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty-nine digital models were used in the automated landmark recognition (ALR) validation phase, 161 of which were digital models from cleft palate subjects aged 5 years. These were manually annotated to facilitate qualitative validation. Additionally, landmarks were placed on 20 adult digital models manually by 3 independent observers. The same models were subjected to scoring using the ALR software and the differences (in mm) were calculated. All the teeth from the 239 models were evaluated for correct recognition by the ALR with a breakdown to find which stages of the process caused the errors. RESULTS: The results revealed that 1526 out of 1915 teeth (79.7%) were correctly identified, and the accuracy validation gave 95% confidence intervals for the geometric mean error of [0.285, 0.317] for the humans and [0.269, 0.325] for ALR—a negligible difference. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: It is anticipated that ALR software tool will have applications throughout clinical dentistry and anthropology, and in research will constitute an accurate and objective tool for handling large datasets without the need for time intensive employment of experts to place landmarks manually

Clinical evaluation of marketed orthodontic products: are researchers behind the times? A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: The role of marketing and industry in the treatment decisions of orthodontists has received increasing attention in recent years with clinical research typically undertaken subsequent to established use of these devices and often failing to confirm the promise of manufacturers' claims. This meta-epidemiological study was undertaken to assess the proportion of clinical trials in orthodontics evaluating commercially marketed products and to evaluate the direction of the results of these studies. METHODS: Electronic searching was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published over a 5-year period (1 January 2012 to 31 December 2016). Data obtained included the type of marketed intervention, direction of effect and declaration of both industry sponsorship and conflict of interest. RESULTS: Eighty-four RCTs published in 23 scientific journals were included with the highest percentage in the American Journal of Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO) (23.8%), followed by the European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) (14.3%), Journal of Orthodontics (JO) (10.7%) and Angle Orthodontist (AO) (10.7%). Overall, 45% (38/84) of clinical trials assessed involved analysis of marketed products after their introduction. Interventions to improve oral health or circumvent the risk of iatrogenic damage, such as white spot lesions, were most commonly assessed (15.8%), with the relative merits of non-surgical adjuncts (14.1%) and other orthodontic auxiliaries (13.1%) also frequently evaluated. In 44% of RCTs, a positive effect of the marketed intervention was not reported. Industry sponsorship of the research was declared in 9.5% RCTs. No significant associations between the direction of the effect and both declaration of industry sponsorship (p = 0.56) and conflict of interest (p = 0.96) were detected. Moreover, for marketed and non-marketed products, no significant associations for both declaration of industry sponsorship (p = 0.44) and conflict of interest (p = 0.28) were found. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of orthodontic clinical trials over the past 5 years involve analysis of marketed products after their introduction. The results highlight a potential source of waste in orthodontic research emanating from existing approaches to licensing and marketing of orthodontic products

Photobiotin surface chemistry improves label-free interferometric sensing of biochemical interactions

Summary Objective To compare the quality of orthodontic treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. Subjects and methods Eligible participants aged 12 years or over were allocated to the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch slot MBT appliance (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) using block randomization in groups of 10. Outcome measures included: 1. ABO cast-radiograph evaluation (CR-EVAL), 2. peer assessment rating (PAR) scores, 3. incisor inclination, and 4. patient perception using the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need aesthetic component (IOTN AC) and three validated questionnaires before, during and after treatment. Parametric tests [independent samples t-test and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)] and non-parametric tests (chi-square with Fisher’s exact tests and Mann–Whitney U-test) assessed differences between groups (P &amp;lt; 0.05). Results Of the 187 participants randomized (1:1 ratio), 34 withdrew or were excluded (protocol deviations or poor cooperation). There were 77 patients in the 0.018-inch slot group and 76 patients in the 0.022-inch slot group (overall mean age: 19.1 years). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P &amp;gt; 0.05). The mean total ABO CR-EVAL scores were 34.7 and 34.5; mean percentage PAR score reduction 74.1 per cent and 77.1 per cent; mean change for maxillary incisor inclination 2.9 degrees and 1.6 degrees and for mandibular incisor inclination 2.7 degrees and 1.4 degrees for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch groups, respectively. Improvement in patient perception of aesthetics after treatment was statistically significant for both groups (P &amp;lt; 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups for ABO CR-EVAL, percentage PAR score reduction, incisor inclination, and patient perception of treatment (P &amp;gt; 0.05). No adverse events were observed during treatment. Limitations It was impossible to blind clinicians or patients to allocation and oral hygiene and periodontal outcomes were not assessed. Conclusions There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in the quality of occlusal outcomes, incisor inclination and patient perception of treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. Registration The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338. Protocol The protocol was published at DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-389. </jats:sec