Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of the Association of VDR rs2228570 Polymorphism with Elite Track and Field Athletes’ Competitive Performance
Next Article in Special Issue
The Perspective of mHealth in the Self-Assessment of the Parkinson’s Disease. Comment on Kalafati et al. Testing of Motor Coordination in Degenerative Neurological Diseases. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1948
Previous Article in Journal
The Mobile Patient Information Assistant (PIA) App during the Inpatient Surgical Hospital Stay: Evaluation of Usability and Patient Approval
Previous Article in Special Issue
Functional Improvement and Satisfaction with a Wearable Hip Exoskeleton in Community-Living Adults
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 11
Issue 5
10.3390/healthcare11050683
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Artificial Intelligence Systems Assisting in the Assessment of the Course and Retention of Orthodontic Treatment

by
Martin Strunga
*,
Renáta Urban
,
Jana Surovková
and
Andrej Thurzo
*
Department of Orthodontics, Regenerative and Forensic Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University in Bratislava, 81250 Bratislava, Slovakia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2023, 11(5), 683; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11050683
Submission received: 31 December 2022 / Revised: 17 February 2023 / Accepted: 23 February 2023 / Published: 25 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Assistive Technologies, Robotics, and Automated Machines in the Health Domain)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This scoping review examines the contemporary applications of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) software in orthodontics, focusing on its potential to improve daily working protocols, but also highlighting its limitations. The aim of the review was to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of current AI-based systems compared to conventional methods in diagnosing, assessing the progress of patients’ treatment and follow-up stability. The researchers used various online databases and identified diagnostic software and dental monitoring software as the most studied software in contemporary orthodontics. The former can accurately identify anatomical landmarks used for cephalometric analysis, while the latter enables orthodontists to thoroughly monitor each patient, determine specific desired outcomes, track progress, and warn of potential changes in pre-existing pathology. However, there is limited evidence to assess the stability of treatment outcomes and relapse detection. The study concludes that AI is an effective tool for managing orthodontic treatment from diagnosis to retention, benefiting both patients and clinicians. Patients find the software easy to use and feel better cared for, while clinicians can make diagnoses more easily and assess compliance and damage to braces or aligners more quickly and frequently.

1. Introduction

Assistive technologies and automated systems are high-tech elements that are every day reshaping workflows of modern healthcare. Assistive technologies, including virtual reality, are designed to improve or maintain a person’s functioning so that they can participate in all aspects of life [1,2,3]. Automated systems empowered with Artificial Intelligence (AI) can support healthcare decision-making, therapy, and rehabilitation and can also help prevent treatment errors. These technologies can be used individually or can be interconnected to create assisted living solutions or enable rehabilitation at home [4]. Artificial intelligence is essential for advanced computer aided diagnostics’ [5] appropriate integration of social robots with the potential to bring benefits to aged care [6] and also future hybrid exoskeleton systems [7]. Various telemonitoring systems will benefit from the AI evaluation of sensor data from mobile phones or wearables, e.g., patient movements in the early diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease [8]. AI is not only the future of advanced robotics in healthcare [9,10], but it is also cornerstone of advanced digital radiology [11] in dentistry, including the orthodontic specialty [12,13,14]. The editorial of the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health from September 2022 by Giansanti summarized what is expected from an AI-based system [2] in the public health domain.
Today’s rapidly growing desire by dental practices to increase the effectiveness of their treatments has led to the development of numerous tools to achieve this, such as Dental Monitoring software (DM) (Dental Monitoring Co., Paris, France), StrojCHECK by Sangre Azul (3Dent medical Ltd., Bratislava, Slovakia), White teeth, etc. DM is a combination of artificial intelligence and telemedicine that enables easy daily collaboration and communication between the dental practice and the patient via a smartphone software app. This facilitates the coordination and execution of each step and the monitoring of the achieved goals throughout the treatment. It is feasible for both parties to use the maximum potential of this tool. There is an increasing demand for health apps not only in orthodontic dentistry but also in other medical specialties [15,16].
The possibilities of health apps are immense, ranging from promoting an active, healthy lifestyle, assisting with nutrition, preventing diabetes and high blood pressure, and treating depression to changing behavior to stop smoking and drinking alcohol, taking medications regularly, etc. They also enable monitoring and adjustment of calorie intake and output. For this purpose, additional devices such as wristbands and smartwatches are often used alongside smartphones. These sensor systems vary from accelerometers, barometers, geosensors, heart rate sensors, etc. [17,18]. Additionally, current studies have shown that telemedicine also provides a way to improve primary care accessibility, as it can decrease the time to specialty consultation, reduce the number of patients on the waitlist, and it allows the more urgent cases to reach a specialist sooner [19]. The high technological level of sensors in smartphones have led not only to dental monitoring but also to utilizations of optical scanning for 3D face morphology registration [20,21].
This application of telemedicine, specifically teledentistry, has proven to be increasingly popular and acceptable amongst not only adolescent and child patients but also in adults [22]. For some clinical applications of advanced 3D-printed appliances in children with craniofacial syndrome, regular home telemonitoring would be extremely valuable and would minimize the potential risks of appliance damage and treatment failure in complicated cases, such as Pierre Robin Sequence patients with 3D-printed palatal plates or common orthodontic patients with 3D-printed distalizers [21,23,24]. This also brings an economic and efficiency aspect to the usage of various types of telehealth software. Current data from after the COVID-19 pandemic show that treatments monitored with a DM app required 33.1% less appointments than patients without monitoring. In addition, the duration of the first phase of treatment was reduced by 1.7 months on average for the DM group and, finally, although without clinically significant relevance (less than 0.5 mm or less than 2°), there was an increased accuracy of movements expressed on maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth when compared to predicted positions [25,26].
Studies have shown that their use is perceived as feasible for several reasons: the first, and particularly important, reason is the behavioral impact on the patient during usage of these tools. It has been proven that a patient’s engagement in the treatment is considerably improved as a direct effect of working with the app. As a result, better compliance is expected; hence, the outlined outcome should be improved accordingly. Compliance is, apart from the quality of treatment planning and difficulty of the teeth movements, increasingly one of the most crucial aspects of achieving treatment goals, especially for aligner treatments, which are on a significant popularity rise. Furthermore, when a patient is being self-scanned on a 4-, 7-, 10-, or 14-day basis, he is also aware that the hygienic status of his teeth will be assessed and visible to the doctor, assistants, and even third party (the software staff as well), which, overall, leads to improvement in his dental hygiene [27,28,29,30].
The software uses a knowledge-based algorithm that evaluates the data patients send to the app after taking a series of photos with their smartphone. An automatic preset for feedback and comments is then sent back to the patient, containing a lot of data for the patient about their current dental status [31].
Unlike other telecommunications systems such as Skype, Google Duo, Zoom, and others [14], which cannot provide a standardized evaluation of the clinical situation, the DM system provides process automation through a knowledge-based algorithm that is based on a combination of robotic and deep learning processes, with information systems that act like a semi-intelligent user [25,32].
The aim of this article was to investigate the use of advanced AI software in orthodontics, particularly for the purposes of CBCT diagnosis and assessment, treatment progress assessment, and outcome stability in the follow-up phase. We evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of these AI tools compared to conventional methods and discuss the potential benefits of using such software in orthodontic practice, including the ability to closely monitor each patient, set specific treatment goals and track their achievement, and detect changes in occlusion, jaw translation, and tooth movement.
The secondary objective was to summarize reported limitations of implemented AI-powered systems in orthodontics.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Research Question

The question for the literature research was defined specifically enough to allow the review team to identify relevant studies, but broadly enough to capture the full scope of the topic being reviewed.
How are AI systems currently assisting the assessment of the treatment or retention of orthodontic treatment clinically implemented, and what are their advantages and limitations?

2.2. The Search Strategy

The search strategy aimed to identify all relevant studies on the topic being reviewed. This involved searching databases and grey literature to ensure that this review was as comprehensive as possible. For this review, PubMed, Scopus, the Web of Science—Core Collection, and Google Scholar were queried.
The query was developed in dialogue with AI ChatGPT 3.5 Dec 15 Version (OpenAI Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA). Databases were queried on 20 December 2022 with the following query:
(orthodontic treatment OR orthodontics) AND (artificial intelligence OR machine learning OR deep learning) AND (assessment OR evaluation OR prediction) AND (course OR retention OR outcomes)
The definition of the query was suggested upon drafts of this review title, abstract, and defined research question and was accepted by all four evaluators. This search query would find articles that discuss the use of artificial intelligence systems in evaluating the course and retention of orthodontic treatment and contain the relevant terms “orthodontic treatment”, “artificial intelligence”, “evaluation”, and “course” or “retention”.

2.3. The Review Process

All studies returned by search were analyzed for duplicities followed by analysis from four evaluators for title and abstract evaluation. Only studies relevant to the topic were selected, and relevant data were extracted.

3. Results

All articles below dating before 2020 were eliminated from the study, as only the most contemporary and relevant data were to be gathered.
We excluded 17 articles that complied with queried keywords but were not addressing the topic even marginally. Table 1 shows most cited articles relevant to the queried keywords.

3.1. Cephalometric Landmark Detection and Placement by Artificial Intelligence

Multiple studies confirmed a wide range of software enabling recognition and detection and automatic placement of cephalometric landmarks, detecting pathologies using CBCT images, pathologies ranging from tumors, cysts, periapical lesions, caries, supernumerary teeth, tissue alterations as present in infectious processes, and abscess formations. In various measurements, they compared the accuracy of these evaluations to the skills of a trained dentist, all showing more than 95% compatibility with the findings of the dentists [33,35,36,37,40,49,50].
Juerchott et al. are also studying whether MRI can serve as an alternative to CBCT for 3D cephalometric analysis. Mean values were found to be equivalent, which supports this thesis, which could possibly reduce radiation exposure for many patients [44].
Moreover, segmentation of the facial skeleton was carried out by automatized MS-D convolution networks then compared to a segmentation set by orthodontists; the mean difference was insignificant, whereas the amount of time needed for segmentation was about 5 h for 1 CBCT for an orthodontist and 25 s for the CNN. This study showed that an incredible amount of time was possibly saved by this AI [38].
Ren et al. gathered data that also claim AI and deep machine learning is not already utilized for a cephalometric landmark, but it is already being used for determination of cervical vertebrae stages, oral cancer detection, cancer margin assessment, its prognosis, dental caries detection, root morphology, the presence of periapical lesions, and facial attractiveness evaluation [46].

3.2. Dental Monitoring System Applications

A study by Dallesandri et al. studied the approach of patients and dentists toward a DM system throughout their orthodontic treatments. Collected data showed that all dentists judged telemonitoring positively, as 96.25% of them considered telemonitoring indicative of high-tech and high-quality treatment, and 100% considered it a way to reduce the number of in-office visits. In addition, 97.5% of patients judged telemonitoring positively; 81.25% of them considered telemonitoring indicative of high-tech treatment; 81.25% declared themselves to be interested in reducing the number of in-office visits through telemonitoring. Telemonitoring was assessed as plausible both by patients and dentists; it was also understood as a high-tech tool that could improve quality and effectiveness of the treatments. Both groups were also pleased by possibly reducing the number of in-office visits. However, additional funding for this utility from the side of the patient was less welcomed, and compliance would be put to the question if such was the case [47].
Caruso et al. carried out a two-case study where they assessed treatments of patients using DM. Both patients displayed good compliance and successfully reached all established treatment goals. The needed movements were difficult to achieve, yet, owing to being able to be monitored, they completed treatment quickly; they both followed a seven-day exchange protocol, which is slightly faster than the usually observed treatment speed. There were phases in treatment when it was necessary to prolong the time on each aligner, while maintaining adequate tracking. After this period, the speed adaptively returned to the previous schedule. Patients assessed that monitoring was easy to use; it detected debonding auxiliaries and thus improved quality of the treatment [27].
Impellizzeri et al.’s study suggests that using DM with 0.014 × 0.025 CuNiTi wires in a self-ligating straight-wire appliance successfully reduced the number of appointments for each patient from 3 appointments in 10 weeks to 2 per 10 weeks. Naturally, a reduction in chair time and material costs was observed. Moreover, more precise evaluation of treatment by the doctor was possible [48].
Another study by Sangalli et al. revealed that when patients were equipped with a cheek retractor and scan box by Dental Monitoring and instructed to take monthly intra-oral scans, this study group of patients showed a significant improvement in plaque control compared to the control group. A decreased number of emergency appointments in the study group was also registered, although it was not significant. The patients were not orthodontic treatment cases [52].
Maspero et al., in a 2020 article, confirmed that this application saved 5.8 appointments over a 2-year treatment. Its software platform was observed by patients as user-friendly and they noted improvement of communication with the doctor. Moreover, it was observed that stability of the result could also be measured and, if relapse of misalignment of the teeth were to occur, swift measures could be enacted to interfere with relapse development. Measurement was carried out by Moylan et al. in 2019. They compared intercanine and intermolar measurement differences between plaster models based on impressions taken by a dentist versus measurements from data from Dental Monitoring software. The differences ranged from 0.17 mm and −0.02 mm; this was assessed as sufficiently accurate [34,54]. Another publication measured the difference in STL (Stereolithography) files provided from the iTero scanners and STL files generated by DM software. Differences ranged from 0.0148 mm to 0.0275 mm; thus, they safely stated the method is accurate enough for clinical applications [55].

3.3. Other AI and Teldentistry Applications

An article by Achmad utilized teledentistry in order to connect with distant patients for consultations throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, which was exceptionally well-accepted by both groups [53]. Another purpose of teledentistry was documented by Deshpande et al., who found out that if trained general dentists were remotely communicating with orthodontists via teledentistry, more accurate interceptive orthodontic treatments would be made available, which thus led to a reduction in severity of malocclusions in disadvantaged children where referral was not plausible. Moreover, unnecessary referrals were filtered out, which is an advantage both for specialist and patient. They also warn of the risk that diagnosis based on clinical photography made by the patient may not be accurate, and the practitioner may not collect all necessary data, since other diagnostic procedures such as percussion and palpation cannot be performed via photography [41].
Asiri et al. summarized in their review that most commonly utilized AI domains were intended for diagnostics and treatment planning, followed by automated anatomic landmark detection used for cephalometry. Marginally, AI was used for assessment of growth and development and evaluation of treatment outcome [39].

4. Discussion

Contemporary data show that there is a growing trend towards the use of telemedicine in modern dental and orthodontic practices, as it has been proven to increase efficiency and allow dentists to specifically monitor each case and focus on the most important goals for each patient, while saving chairside time and patient resources and preventing deterioration of their dental status, from which they also benefit financially, psychologically, and esthetically. Likewise, the quality of treatment is improved, and the time needed to resolve problems is reduced. Although the benefits for the patient are not yet fully known, since the willingness to use the modern aids is not yet as high as the doctor would like, the demand is increasing [11,25,25,30,32,42,51,56,57].
The availability for the patient and the practice is indeed very high: the only technical requirement for the patient is a smartphone and an internet connection. The rest is provided by the dental practice. Patient compliance is also statistically higher. Undoubtedly, more and more applications will be developed to facilitate the treatments even more and increase the comfort for the user during the treatment [43,45,54,58,59].
In comparison with conventional methods of treatment management, physicians will be able to increase the number of patients they can treat at one time without compromising the quality of the services provided. They can, in fact, observe the patient’s dental status more often, with great detail, instruct the patient remotely to aid in his or her treatment, or change instructions for further steps, e.g., change of placement of intra- and inter-maxillary elastics. They do not have to rely on a patient´s observation skills in terms of debonding of brackets, attachments, or other auxilliars, and problems can be detected much sooner than 3–4 weeks of the next appointment. Moreover, the treatment doctor can very quickly detect the first signs of relapse of the malocclusion, even at the slightest movement of a singular tooth. In addition, improved compliance is observed through the use of the new, attractive AI software. Finally, the ability to seek treatment over long distances is highly desirable, both for patients who travel frequently or live abroad and during pandemics such as those that have occurred in recent years [12,14]. Additionally, when comparing traditional diagnostic methods, the use of AI systems can speed up and enhance even the development of complicated orthognathic surgery treatment planning, where fast cephalometric tracing is performed by software. Jaw segmentation is also faster when performed by AI then by even skilled practitioners. Furthermore, dental and skeletal pathologies can be detected easier and not be omitted from an orthodontist’s line of sight, as during cephalometric analysis his focus is mostly on the landmarks and bigger picture of a patient´s skeleton rather than singular teeth.
The combination of AI and teledentistry introduces a historical paradigm shift in orthodontic care. Software enhanced by advanced AI provides not only sophisticated evaluations of clinical situation and post-treatment stability but also pre-treatment diagnostics or even automated segmentations of CBCT utilized for cephalometric [36,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67], airway [68,69], or forensic applications [70,71]. AI-powered software for orthodontic cephalometric analysis recently became a common tool for a reliable and accurate cephalometric tracing method [61,72], which represents a significant evolution from the times of analog cephalometric processing [73].
This review identified several limitations to using AI-powered systems in orthodontics:
  • Accuracy: AI-powered systems can help with diagnosis and treatment planning, but they are not as accurate as a trained orthodontist in identifying and treating complex cases [55,74,75], although some reports have shown that the level of accuracy is nearing the human level.
  • Expertise: AI systems do not have the same level of clinical expertise as a trained orthodontist. They may not be able to fully understand the patient’s needs and cannot provide the same level of individualized care [30,48,74].
  • Ethical concerns: There are also ethical concerns about the use of AI in healthcare, including the possibility of biased algorithms and the potential to replace human labor with automation [76,77,78].
  • Cost: AI systems can be expensive to implement and maintain and may not be accessible to all patients or clinicians.
  • Regulation: the use of AI in healthcare also comes with regulatory challenges. These include the need for oversight to ensure the accuracy and safety of AI-powered systems [11,79,80].
A limitation of this paper is that there is a wide range of different attributes and parameters that could be used to evaluate the benefits to both parties, and further studies should be conducted that explore each parameter in more depth.
This paper also highlights that the use of AI software in orthodontics raises questions about reliability, as these tools can contain errors and bias that can lead to mistakes or mishaps during treatment. The review included most impactful studies on the use of AI in orthodontics and summarized the characteristics of current software alternatives. The accuracy and expertise have been evaluated as sufficient, albeit a sufficient number of studies on this matter have not been published yet. The value of AI-powered monitoring of the orthodontic retention phase is not completely appreciated yet and very few studies are focusing on this aspect. The authors of this paper see unexplored potential in this direction.
Current clinical decision support systems in orthodontics are already supported by AI. Commercial companies that manufacture clear aligners use data from millions of digital intraoral scans sent by clinical providers and apply AI algorithms to predict and plan tooth movement after they perform tooth segmentation. However, such AI algorithms are not validated and require clinicians to exercise caution when using the predictions provided and monitoring treatment outcomes [81,82].
Scientific reviews mapping the clinical application of orthodontic AI show a significant increase since 2020, recognizing the potential to support the assessment of orthodontic treatment and retention in a variety of ways. This has been accelerated by the global pandemic and technological AI breakthroughs. In 2022, AI algorithms were used to analyze and interpret digital images and diagnostic data, such as dental radiographs, photographs, CBCT, or intraoral photos and video scans, to identify problems and predict treatment course, outcome, or stability. AI has also been widely used to monitor patients during treatment and provide real-time feedback and alerts to ensure treatment is going as planned. AI-based systems and their application have even reached university orthodontic curricula [12,14,26,68,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92].
In addition, AI can be used to help orthodontists track and analyze patient data over time, allowing them to identify trends and patterns that may be useful in predicting treatment outcomes and optimizing treatment plans. This could be especially useful for patients with complex or difficult cases, where traditional methods of assessment may not be sufficient [25,27,27,32].
Non lege artis treatment can take many forms, such as using treatments that have not been proven effective, using treatments in an inappropriate or dangerous manner, or failing to follow accepted protocols for diagnosing or treating a particular condition. Such treatment may also involve exploitation or abuse of patients, such as taking advantage of their vulnerability or trust. AI implementations in orthodontic software are no exception.
In 2023, the European Union announces the idea of creating the world’s first comprehensive standards for regulating or prohibiting certain applications of artificial intelligence [79].
The EU’s AI law is expected to lead the world in regulating AI. The AI Act is a proposal for a European law on artificial intelligence (AI)—the first law on AI to be passed by a major regulator. The law assigns applications of AI to three categories of risk. First, applications and systems that pose unacceptable risk, including state-run social assessments such as those used in China, are banned. Second, high-risk applications, such as a CV scanning tool that ranks job applicants, are subject to specific legal requirements. Finally, applications that are not explicitly banned or classified as high-risk are largely unregulated [93].

5. Conclusions

The use of AI in the assessment and retention of orthodontic treatment is an emerging area with significant potential for improving patient care and outcomes. It is likely to see many more AI-powered tools and systems being developed and adopted in the field of orthodontics in the coming years.
Literature research concludes that while AI-powered systems already effectively assist in orthodontic treatment, they must be used in conjunction with properly trained orthodontists to achieve the best possible outcomes for patients. Unsupervised applications of AI-assisted systems in orthodontics are not in accordance with the standards of good medical practice or the principles of medical ethics. With current unresolved risks of AI bias and incoming AI governmental regulations, such an unsupervised orthodontic treatment would be considered as non lege artis.
This scoping review proves that the current clinical adoption of AI-powered systems has already reshaped the form of modern orthodontic practice, albeit they are still rife with limitations such as: accuracy, expertise, ethical concerns, cost, and regulatory issues.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.T., M.S., R.U. and J.S.; methodology, A.T.; software, A.T.; validation, A.T., M.S., R.U. and J.S.; formal analysis, A.T.; investigation, resources, A.T.; data curation, A.T. and J.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.T., M.S., R.U. and J.S.; writing—review and editing, A.T., M.S., R.U. and J.S.; visualization; supervision, A.T.; project administration, A.T.; funding acquisition, A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Slovak Grant Agency for Science KEGA Thurzo—grant No. 054UK-4/2023.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the technological support of the digital dental lab infrastructure of the 3Dent Medical Ltd. company, (Bernolakovo, Slovakia) as well as the dental clinic, Sangre Azul Ltd., (Chiyoda City, Tokyo).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tokgöz, P.; Stampa, S.; Wähnert, D.; Vordemvenne, T.; Dockweiler, C. Virtual Reality in the Rehabilitation of Patients with Injuries and Diseases of Upper Extremities. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Giansanti, D. Artificial Intelligence in Public Health: Current Trends and Future Possibilities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hanna, J.J.; Nijhawan, A.E.; Lehmann, C.U.; Medford, R.J. Simulating Facebook Advertisements to Establish Cost per New HIV Diagnosis Using Routine and Targeted Models in a Local Population. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Giansanti, D. Assistive Technologies, Robotics, Automatic Machines: Perspectives of Integration in the Health Domain. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Samee, N.A.; Ahmad, T.; Mahmoud, N.F.; Atteia, G.; Abdallah, H.A.; Rizwan, A. Clinical Decision Support Framework for Segmentation and Classification of Brain Tumor MRIs Using a U-Net and DCNN Cascaded Learning Algorithm. Healthcare 2022, 10, 2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Leung, A.Y.M.; Zhao, I.Y.; Leung, A.Y.M.; Zhao, I.Y.; Lin, S.; Lau, T.K. Exploring the Presence of Humanoid Social Robots at Home and Capturing Human-Robot Interactions with Older Adults: Experiences from Four Case Studies. Healthcare 2022, 11, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kavalieros, D.; Kapothanasis, E.; Kakarountas, A.; Loukopoulos, T. Methodology for Selecting the Appropriate Electric Motor for Robotic Modular Systems for Lower Extremities. Healthcare 2022, 10, 2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Kalafati, M.; Kakarountas, A.; Chroni, E. Testing of Motor Coordination in Degenerative Neurological Diseases. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jin, M.; Choi, H. Caregiver Views on Prospective Use of Robotic Care in Helping Children Adapt to Hospitalization. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pirrera, A.; Meli, P.; de Dominicis, A.; Lepri, A.; Giansanti, D. Assistive Technologies and Quadriplegia: A Map Point on the Development and Spread of the Tongue Barbell Piercing. Healthcare 2022, 11, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Giansanti, D. The Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in Digital Radiology in the Scientific Literature: A Narrative Review of Reviews. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Thurzo, A.; Urbanová, W.; Novák, B.; Czako, L.; Siebert, T.; Stano, P.; Mareková, S.; Fountoulaki, G.; Kosnáčová, H.; Varga, I. Where Is the Artificial Intelligence Applied in Dentistry? Systematic Review and Literature Analysis. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Thurzo, A.; Kosnáčová, H.S.; Kurilová, V.; Kosmeľ, S.; Beňuš, R.; Moravanský, N.; Kováč, P.; Kuracinová, K.M.; Palkovič, M.; Varga, I. Use of Advanced Artificial Intelligence in Forensic Medicine, Forensic Anthropology and Clinical Anatomy. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Thurzo, A.; Kurilová, V.; Varga, I. Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontic Smart Application for Treatment Coaching and Its Impact on Clinical Performance of Patients Monitored with AI-Telehealth System. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Payne, K.F.B.; Wharrad, H.; Watts, K. Smartphone and Medical Related App Use among Medical Students and Junior Doctors in the United Kingdom (UK): A Regional Survey. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2012, 12, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Helbostad, J.L.; Vereijken, B.; Becker, C.; Todd, C.; Taraldsen, K.; Pijnappels, M.; Aminian, K.; Mellone, S. Mobile Health Applications to Promote Active and Healthy Ageing. Sensors 2017, 17, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Quinn, C.C.; Shardell, M.D.; Terrin, M.L.; Barr, E.A.; Ballew, S.H.; Gruber-Baldini, A.L. Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Mobile Phone Personalized Behavioral Intervention for Blood Glucose Control. Diabetes Care 2011, 34, 1934–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Carrasco, M.P.; Salvador, C.H.; Sagredo, P.G.; Márquez-Montes, J.; González de Mingo, M.A.; Fragua, J.A.; Rodríguez, M.C.; García-Olmos, L.M.; García-López, F.; Carrero, A.M.; et al. Impact of Patient-General Practitioner Short-Messages-Based Interaction on the Control of Hypertension in a Follow-up Service for Low-to-Medium Risk Hypertensive Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 2008, 12, 780–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Pfeil, J.N.; Rados, D.V.; Roman, R.; Katz, N.; Nunes, L.N.; Vigo, Á.; Harzheim, E. A Telemedicine Strategy to Reduce Waiting Lists and Time to Specialist Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study. J. Telemed. Telecare 2020, 29, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Thurzo, A.; Strunga, M.; Havlínová, R.; Reháková, K.; Urban, R.; Surovková, J.; Kurilová, V. Smartphone-Based Facial Scanning as a Viable Tool for Facially Driven Orthodontics? Sensors 2022, 22, 7752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Thurzo, A.; Urbanová, W.; Neuschlová, I.; Paouris, D.; Čverha, M. Use of Optical Scanning and 3D Printing to Fabricate Customized Appliances for Patients with Craniofacial Disorders. Semin. Orthod. 2022, 28, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Giudice, A.; Barone, S.; Muraca, D.; Averta, F.; Diodati, F.; Antonelli, A.; Fortunato, L. Can Teledentistry Improve the Monitoring of Patients during the COVID-19 Dissemination? A Descriptive Pilot Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Thurzo, A.; Šufliarsky, B.; Urbanová, W.; Čverha, M.; Strunga, M.; Varga, I. Pierre Robin Sequence and 3D Printed Personalized Composite Appliances in Interdisciplinary Approach. Polymers 2022, 14, 3858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Thurzo, A.; Urbanová, W.; Novák, B.; Waczulíková, I.; Varga, I. Utilization of a 3D Printed Orthodontic Distalizer for Tooth-Borne Hybrid Treatment in Class II Unilateral Malocclusions. Materials 2022, 15, 1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hansa, I.; Katyal, V.; Ferguson, D.J.; Vaid, N. Outcomes of Clear Aligner Treatment with and without Dental Monitoring: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2021, 159, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Thurzo, A.; Urbanová, W.; Waczulíková, I.; Kurilová, V.; Mriňáková, B.; Kosnáčová, H.; Gális, B.; Varga, I.; Matajs, M.; Novák, B. Dental Care and Education Facing Highly Transmissible SARS-CoV-2 Variants: Prospective Biosafety Setting: Prospective, Single-Arm, Single-Center Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Caruso, S.; Caruso, S.; Pellegrino, M.; Skafi, R.; Nota, A.; Tecco, S. A Knowledge-Based Algorithm for Automatic Monitoring of Orthodontic Treatment: The Dental Monitoring System. Two Cases. Sensors 2021, 21, 1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ben-Omran, M.O.; Livinski, A.A.; Kopycka-Kedzierawski, D.T.; Boroumand, S.; Williams, D.; Weatherspoon, D.J.; Iafolla, T.J.; Fontelo, P.; Dye, B.A. The Use of Teledentistry in Facilitating Oral Health for Older Adults: A Scoping Review. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2021, 152, 998–1011.e17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shen, K.L.; Huang, C.L.; Lin, Y.C.; Du, J.K.; Chen, F.L.; Kabasawa, Y.; Chen, C.C.; Huang, H.L. Effects of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Dental Monitoring Intervention in Patients with Periodontitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2022, 49, 988–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Albalawi, F.; Alamoud, K.A. Trends and Application of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Orthodontic Diagnosis and Treatment Planning—A Review. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Singh, P. Orthodontic Apps for Smartphones. J. Orthod. 2013, 40, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hansa, I.; Semaan, S.J.; Vaid, N.R. Clinical Outcomes and Patient Perspectives of Dental Monitoring® GoLive® with Invisalign®—A Retrospective Cohort Study. Prog. Orthod. 2020, 21, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kunz, F.; Stellzig-Eisenhauer, A.; Zeman, F.; Boldt, J. Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontics: Evaluation of a Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis Using a Customized Convolutional Neural Network. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2020, 81, 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Maspero, C.; Abate, A.; Cavagnetto, D.; el Morsi, M.; Fama, A.; Farronato, M. Available Technologies, Applications and Benefits of Teleorthodontics. A Literature Review and Possible Applications during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Yu, H.J.; Cho, S.R.; Kim, M.J.; Kim, W.H.; Kim, J.W.; Choi, J. Automated Skeletal Classification with Lateral Cephalometry Based on Artificial Intelligence. J. Dent. Res. 2020, 99, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lee, J.-H.; Yu, H.-J.; Kim, M.; Kim, J.-W.; Choi, J. Automated Cephalometric Landmark Detection with Confidence Regions Using Bayesian Convolutional Neural Networks. BMC Oral Health 2020, 20, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Leite, A.F.; de Faria Vasconcelos, K.; Willems, H.; Jacobs, R. Radiomics and Machine Learning in Oral Healthcare. Proteom. Clin. Appl. 2020, 14, e1900040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Wang, H.; Minnema, J.; Batenburg, K.J.; Forouzanfar, T.; Hu, F.J.; Wu, G. Multiclass CBCT Image Segmentation for Orthodontics with Deep Learning. J. Dent. Res. 2021, 100, 943–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bichu, Y.M.; Hansa, I.; Bichu, A.Y.; Premjani, P.; Flores-Mir, C.; Vaid, N.R. Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Orthodontics: A Scoping Review. Prog. Orthod. 2021, 22, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schwendicke, F.; Chaurasia, A.; Arsiwala, L.; Lee, J.H.; Elhennawy, K.; Jost-Brinkmann, P.G.; Demarco, F.; Krois, J. Deep Learning for Cephalometric Landmark Detection: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021, 25, 4299–4309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Deshpande, S.; Patil, D.; Dhokar, A.; Bhanushali, P.; Katge, F. Teledentistry: A Boon Amidst COVID-19 Lockdown—A Narrative Review. Int. J. Telemed. Appl. 2021, 2021, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ahmed, N.; Abbasi, M.S.; Zuberi, F.; Qamar, W.; bin Halim, M.S.; Maqsood, A.; Alam, M.K. Artificial Intelligence Techniques: Analysis, Application, and Outcome in Dentistry—A Systematic Review. BioMed Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mohammad-Rahimi, H.; Nadimi, M.; Rohban, M.H.; Shamsoddin, E.; Lee, V.Y.; Motamedian, S.R. Machine Learning and Orthodontics, Current Trends and the Future Opportunities: A Scoping Review. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2021, 160, 170–192.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Juerchott, A.; Freudlsperger, C.; Weber, D.; Jende, J.M.E.; Saleem, M.A.; Zingler, S.; Lux, C.J.; Bendszus, M.; Heiland, S.; Hilgenfeld, T. In Vivo Comparison of MRI- and CBCT-Based 3D Cephalometric Analysis: Beginning of a Non-Ionizing Diagnostic Era in Craniomaxillofacial Imaging? Eur. Radiol. 2020, 30, 1488–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. MacHoy, M.E.; Szyszka-Sommerfeld, L.; Vegh, A.; Gedrange, T.; Woźniak, K. The Ways of Using Machine Learning in Dentistry. Adv. Clin. Exp. Med. 2020, 29, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ren, R.; Luo, H.; Su, C.; Yao, Y.; Liao, W. Machine Learning in Dental, Oral and Craniofacial Imaging: A Review of Recent Progress. PeerJ 2021, 9, e11451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Dalessandri, D.; Sangalli, L.; Tonni, I.; Laffranchi, L.; Bonetti, S.; Visconti, L.; Signoroni, A.; Paganelli, C. Attitude towards Telemonitoring in Orthodontists and Orthodontic Patients. Dent. J. 2021, 9, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Impellizzeri, A.; Horodinsky, M.; Barbato, E.; Polimeni, A.; Salah, P.; Galluccio, G. Dental Monitoring Application: It Is a Valid Innovation in the Orthodontics Practice? Clin. Ter. 2020, 171, e260–e267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Monill-González, A.; Rovira-Calatayud, L.; d’Oliveira, N.G.; Ustrell-Torrent, J.M. Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontics: Where Are We Now? A Scoping Review. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2021, 24, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bulatova, G.; Kusnoto, B.; Grace, V.; Tsay, T.P.; Avenetti, D.M.; Sanchez, F.J.C. Assessment of Automatic Cephalometric Landmark Identification Using Artificial Intelligence. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2021, 24, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Park, J.H.; Rogowski, L.; Kim, J.H.; al Shami, S.; Howell, S.E.I. Teledentistry Platforms for Orthodontics. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2021, 45, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Sangalli, L.; Savoldi, F.; Dalessandri, D.; Bonetti, S.; Gu, M.; Signoroni, A.; Paganelli, C. Effects of Remote Digital Monitoring on Oral Hygiene of Orthodontic Patients: A Prospective Study. BMC Oral Health 2021, 21, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Achmad, H.; Tanumihardja, M.; Ramadhany, Y.F. Teledentistry as a Solution in Dentistry during the Covid-19 Pandemic Period: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Pharm. Res. 2020, 12, 272–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Moylan, H.B.; Carrico, C.K.; Lindauer, S.J.; Tüfekçi, E. Accuracy of a Smartphone-Based Orthodontic Treatment-Monitoring Application: A Pilot Study. Angle Orthod. 2019, 89, 727–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Morris, R.S.; Hoye, L.N.; Elnagar, M.H.; Atsawasuwan, P.; Galang-Boquiren, M.T.; Caplin, J.; Viana, G.C.; Obrez, A.; Kusnoto, B. Accuracy of Dental Monitoring 3D Digital Dental Models Using Photograph and Video Mode. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2019, 156, 420–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sycinska-Dziarnowska, M.; Maglitto, M.; Woźniak, K.; Spagnuolo, G. Oral Health and Teledentistry Interest during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 3532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Roisin, L.-C.; Brézulier, D.; Sorel, O. Remotely-Controlled Orthodontics: Fundamentals and Description of the Dental Monitoring System. J. Dentofac. Anom. Orthod. 2016, 19, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Siddiqui, N.R.; Hodges, S.; Sharif, M.O. Availability of Orthodontic Smartphone Apps. J. Orthod. 2019, 46, 235–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Vaid, N.R.; Hansa, I.; Bichu, Y. Smartphone Applications Used in Orthodontics: A Scoping Review of Scholarly Literature. J. World Fed. Orthod. 2020, 9, S67–S73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kang, S.H.; Jeon, K.; Kang, S.-H.; Lee, S.-H. 3D Cephalometric Landmark Detection by Multiple Stage Deep Reinforcement Learning. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Khader, D.; Peedikayil, F.; Chandru, T.; Kottayi, S.; Namboothiri, D. Reliability of One Ceph Software in Cephalometric Tracing: A Comparative Study. SRM J. Res. Dent. Sci. 2020, 11, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lachinov, D.; Getmanskaya, A.; Turlapov, V. Cephalometric Landmark Regression with Convolutional Neural Networks on 3D Computed Tomography Data. Pattern Recognit. Image Anal. 2020, 30, 512–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Botelho, F.; Davidovitch, M.; Sella-Tunis, T.; Abramovicz, L.; Reiter, S.; Matalon, S.; Shpack, N. Verification of Convolutional Neural Network Cephalometric Landmark Identification. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Duman, Ş.B.; Syed, A.Z.; Celik Ozen, D.; Bayrakdar, İ.Ş.; Salehi, H.S.; Abdelkarim, A.; Celik, Ö.; Eser, G.; Altun, O.; Orhan, K. Convolutional Neural Network Performance for Sella Turcica Segmentation and Classification Using CBCT Images. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 2244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Le, V.N.T.; Kang, J.; Oh, I.S.; Kim, J.G.; Yang, Y.M.; Lee, D.W. Effectiveness of Human–Artificial Intelligence Collaboration in Cephalometric Landmark Detection. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Zhou, J.; Zhou, H.; Pu, L.; Gao, Y.; Tang, Z.; Yang, Y.; You, M.; Yang, Z.; Lai, W.; Long, H. Development of an Artificial Intelligence System for the Automatic Evaluation of Cervical Vertebral Maturation Status. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Kim, C.; Kim, D.; Jeong, H.G.; Yoon, S.J.; Youm, S. Automatic Tooth Detection and Numbering Using a Combination of a CNN and Heuristic Algorithm. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tsolakis, I.A.; Kolokitha, O.-E.; Papadopoulou, E.; Tsolakis, A.I.; Kilipiris, E.G.; Palomo, J.M. Artificial Intelligence as an Aid in CBCT Airway Analysis: A Systematic Review. Life 2022, 12, 1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Fountoulaki, G.; Thurzo, A. Change in the Constricted Airway in Patients after Clear Aligner Treatment: A Retrospective Study. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 2201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Thurzo, A.; Jančovičová, V.; Hain, M.; Thurzo, M.; Novák, B.; Kosnáčová, H.; Lehotská, V.; Moravanský, N.; Varga, I. Human Remains Identification Using Micro-CT, Spectroscopic and A.I. Methods in Forensic Experimental Reconstruction of Dental Patterns After Concentrated Acid Significant Impact. Molecules 2022, 27, 4035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Matsuda, S.; Yoshida, H.; Ebata, K.; Shimada, I.; Yoshimura, H. Forensic Odontology with Digital Technologies: A Systematic Review. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 2020, 74, 102004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tsolakis, I.A.; Tsolakis, A.I.; Elshebiny, T.; Matthaios, S.; Palomo, J.M. Comparing a Fully Automated Cephalometric Tracing Method to a Manual Tracing Method for Orthodontic Diagnosis. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 6854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Thurzo, A.; Javorka, V.; Stanko, P.; Lysy, J.; Suchancova, B.; Lehotska, V.; Valkovic, L.; Makovnik, M. Digital and Manual Cephalometric Analysis. Bratisl. Med. J. 2010, 111, 97–100. [Google Scholar]
  74. Dot, G.; Rafflenbeul, F.; Arbotto, M.; Gajny, L.; Rouch, P.; Schouman, T. Accuracy and Reliability of Automatic Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Landmarking. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 49, 1367–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Baksi, S.; Freezer, S.; Matsumoto, T.; Dreyer, C. Accuracy of an Automated Method of 3D Soft Tissue Landmark Detection. Eur. J. Orthod. 2020, 43, 622–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Focardi, M.; Pinchi, V.; de Luca, F.; Norelli, G.-A. Age Estimation for Forensic Purposes in Italy: Ethical Issues. Int. J. Leg. Med. 2014, 128, 515–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Obermeyer, Z.; Powers, B.; Vogeli, C.; Mullainathan, S. Dissecting Racial Bias in an Algorithm Used to Manage the Health of Populations. Science 2019, 366, 447–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Livingston, M. Preventing Racial Bias in Federal AI. J. Sci. Policy Gov. 2020, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act Will Lead the World on Regulating AI|New Scientist. Available online: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25634192-300-eus-artificial-intelligence-act-will-lead-the-world-on-regulating-ai/ (accessed on 31 December 2022).
  80. Sfikas, P.M. Teledentistry: Legal and Regulatory Issues Explored. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1997, 128, 1716–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. al Turkestani, N.; Bianchi, J.; Deleat-Besson, R.; Le, C.; Tengfei, L.; Prieto, J.C.; Gurgel, M.; Ruellas, A.C.O.; Massaro, C.; Aliaga Del Castillo, A.; et al. Clinical Decision Support Systems in Orthodontics: A Narrative Review of Data Science Approaches. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2021, 24, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Faber, J.; Faber, C.; Faber, P.; Faber, J.; Faber, C.; Faber, P. Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontics. APOS Trends Orthod. 2019, 9, 201–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kasirzadeh, A.; Gabriel, I. In Conversation with Artificial Intelligence: Aligning Language Models with Human Values. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2209.00731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. de Angelis, F.; Pranno, N.; Franchina, A.; di Carlo, S.; Brauner, E.; Ferri, A.; Pellegrino, G.; Grecchi, E.; Goker, F.; Stefanelli, L.V. Artificial Intelligence: A New Diagnostic Software in Dentistry: A Preliminary Performance Diagnostic Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Meghil, M.M.; Rajpurohit, P.; Awad, M.E.; McKee, J.; Shahoumi, L.A.; Ghaly, M. Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry. Dent. Rev. 2022, 2, 100009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ducret, M.; Mörch, C.M.; Karteva, T.; Fisher, J.; Schwendicke, F. Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable Oral Healthcare. J. Dent. 2022, 127, 104344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ramya, Y.; Betha, S.P.; Kauser, A.; Shetty, C. Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontics: A Review. Int. J. Health Sci. 2022, 6, 9378–9383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Shan, T.; Tay, F.R.; Gu, L. Application of Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry. J. Dent. Res. 2021, 100, 232–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ossowska, A.; Kusiak, A.; Świetlik, D. Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry—Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Thurzo, A.; Stanko, P.; Urbanova, W.; Lysy, J.; Suchancova, B.; Makovnik, M.; Javorka, V. The WEB 2.0 Induced Paradigm Shift in the e-Learning and the Role of Crowdsourcing in Dental Education. Bratisl. Med. J. 2010, 111, 168–175. [Google Scholar]
  91. Islam, N.M.; Laughter, L.; Sadid-Zadeh, R.; Smith, C.; Dolan, T.A.; Crain, G.; Squarize, C.H. Adopting Artificial Intelligence in Dental Education: A Model for Academic Leadership and Innovation. J. Dent. Educ. 2022, 86, 1545–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Saghiri, M.A.; Vakhnovetsky, J.; Nadershahi, N. Scoping Review of Artificial Intelligence and Immersive Digital Tools in Dental Education. J. Dent. Educ. 2022, 86, 736–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. The Artificial Intelligence Act. Available online: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/ (accessed on 17 February 2023).
Table
Table 1. The most cited articles relevant to the queried keywords in researched topic.
Table 1. The most cited articles relevant to the queried keywords in researched topic.
#AuthorsTitleCitationsFWCIReferencePublished
1Kunz et al.Artificial intelligence in orthodontics: Evaluation of a fully automated cephalometric analysis using a customized convolutional neural network6512.89[33]2020
2Maspero et al.Available technologies, applications and benefits of teleorthodontics. A literature review and possible applications during the COVID-19 pandemic593.44[34]2020
3Yu et al.Automated Skeletal Classification with Lateral Cephalometry Based on Artificial Intelligence5710.21[35]2020
4Lee et al.Automated cephalometric landmark detection with confidence regions using Bayesian convolutional neural networks407.51[36]2020
5Leite et al.Radiomics and Machine Learning in Oral Healthcare381.83[37]2020
6Wang et al.Multiclass CBCT Image Segmentation for Orthodontics with Deep Learning2711.36[38]2021
7Bichu et al.Applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning in orthodontics: a scoping review206.35[39]2021
9Schwendicke et al.Deep learning for cephalometric landmark detection: systematic review and meta-analysis183.06[40]2021
10Deshpande et al.Teledentistry: A boon amidst COVID-19 Lockdown—A narrative review161.67[41]2021
11Ahmed et al.Artificial Intelligence Techniques: Analysis, Application, and Outcome in Dentistry—A Systematic Review161.34[42]2021
12Mohammadad-Rahimi et al.Machine learning and orthodontics, current trends and the future opportunities: A scoping review144.34[43]2021
13Juerchott et al.In vivo comparison of MRI- and CBCT-based 3D cephalometric analysis: beginnning of a non-ionizing diagnostic era in craniomaxillofacial imaging?141.44[44]2020
14MacHoy et al.The ways of using machine learning in dentistry140.84[45]2020
15Ren et al.Machine learning in dental, oral and craniofacial imaging: A review of recent progress131.39[46]2021
18Dalessandri et al.Attitude towards telemonitoring in orthodontists and orthodontic patients114.8[47]2021
20Caruso et al.A knowledge-based algorithm for automatic monitoring of orthodontic patients: The dental monitoring system. Two cases101.81[27]2021
21ImpellizzeriDental Monitoring Application: I tis a valid innovation in the Orthodontics Pracice?90.86[48]2020
22Monill-González et al.Artificial intelligence in orthodontics: Where are we now? A scoping review92.58[49]2021
23Thurzo et al.Where Is the Artificial Intelligence Applied in Dentistry? Systematic Review and Literature Analysis85.15[12]2022
24Bulatova et al.Assessment of automatic cephalometric landmark identification using artificial intelligence 3.72[50]2021
25Park et al.Teledentistry platforms for orthodontics83.39[51]2021
26Sangalli et al.Effects of remote digital monitoring on oral hygiene of orthodontic patients: a prospective study73.05[52]2021
27Achmad et al.Teledentistry as a solution in dentistry during the covid-19 pandemic period: A systematic review60.78[53]2020
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Strunga, M.; Urban, R.; Surovková, J.; Thurzo, A. Artificial Intelligence Systems Assisting in the Assessment of the Course and Retention of Orthodontic Treatment. Healthcare 2023, 11, 683. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11050683

AMA Style

Strunga M, Urban R, Surovková J, Thurzo A. Artificial Intelligence Systems Assisting in the Assessment of the Course and Retention of Orthodontic Treatment. Healthcare. 2023; 11(5):683. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11050683

Chicago/Turabian Style

Strunga, Martin, Renáta Urban, Jana Surovková, and Andrej Thurzo. 2023. "Artificial Intelligence Systems Assisting in the Assessment of the Course and Retention of Orthodontic Treatment" Healthcare 11, no. 5: 683. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11050683

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop