SynthesisClinical oral investigations2021
Deep learning for cephalometric landmark detection: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
81 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Performance of artificial intelligence in automated measurement of patellofemoral joint parameters: a systematic review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Can artificial intelligence-driven cephalometric analysis replace manual tracing? A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthodontics · 2024Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Cephalometric Landmarks: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of digital imaging · 2023Pooled it
- Accuracy of automated 3D cephalometric landmarks by deep learning algorithms: systematic review and meta-analysis.La Radiologia medica · 2023Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in orthodontics: clinical maturity, evidence gaps, and emerging applications-a narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Review
- Bridging the Implementation Gap: Artificial Intelligence in Periodontology from Proof-of-Concept to Clinical Governance-A Systematic Scoping Review with Evidence from Kazakhstan.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Automated measurement of Little's Irregularity Index on intraoral photographs using a convolutional neural network.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Transformer and generative models in dental and maxillofacial imaging: Narrative review of clinical evidence and future directions.Imaging science in dentistry · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for skeletal classification in orthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis of lateral cephalometric studies.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026Review
- Left-Right Consistency and Quantification of Craniofacial Asymmetry by Two Fully Automatic AI-Powered Three-Dimensional Cephalometry Systems on CBCT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A multimodal vision-language model for comprehensive dental diagnosis and enhanced clinical practice.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Deep Learning-Based Evaluation of Maxillary Dental Midline Deviation on Orthodontic Frontal Photographs.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Agreement of WebCeph-Based Automated and Expert-Adjusted Cephalometric Analyses with Manual and Dolphin Tracings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Machine Learning and Clustering Analysis of Class II and III Malocclusions.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Observational
- Mapping the Mandibular Lingual Foramina for Safer Chin Surgery: CT Morphometry and Predictive Modeling.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical Reliability of AI-Based Cephalometric Analysis Using WebCeph: A Comparative Agreement Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Automated Cephalometric Points Marking System.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A standardized and efficient intensity-based image registration framework for quantitative cranial base superimposition.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Article
- Clinical Equivalence of a CNN-Based Automated Soft Tissue Landmark Detection System on 2D Facial Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of W. Arnett's cephalometric analysis measurements performed using artificial intelligence and manual measurements.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDeep learning (DL) has been increasingly employed for automated landmark detection, e.g., for cephalometric purposes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy and underlying evidence for DL for cephalometric landmark detection on 2-D and 3-D radiographs.
methodsDiagnostic accuracy studies published in 2015-2020 in Medline/Embase/IEEE/arXiv and employing DL for cephalometric landmark detection were identified and extracted by two independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis, subgroup, and meta-regression were performed, and study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. The review was registered (PROSPERO no. 227498). DATA: From 321 identified records, 19 studies (published 2017-2020), all employing convolutional neural networks, mainly on 2-D lateral radiographs (n=15), using data from publicly available datasets (n=12) and testing the detection of a mean of 30 (SD: 25; range.: 7-93) landmarks, were included. The reference test was established by two experts (n=11), 1 expert (n=4), 3 experts (n=3), and a set of annotators (n=1). Risk of bias was high, and applicability concerns were detected for most studies, mainly regarding the data selection and reference test conduct. Landmark prediction error centered around a 2-mm error threshold (mean; 95% confidence interval: (-0.581; 95 CI: -1.264 to 0.102 mm)). The proportion of landmarks detected within this 2-mm threshold was 0.799 (0.770 to 0.824).
conclusionsDL shows relatively high accuracy for detecting landmarks on cephalometric imagery. The overall body of evidence is consistent but suffers from high risk of bias. Demonstrating robustness and generalizability of DL for landmark detection is needed. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Existing DL models show consistent and largely high accuracy for automated detection of cephalometric landmarks. The majority of studies so far focused on 2-D imagery; data on 3-D imagery are sparse, but promising. Future studies should focus on demonstrating generalizability, robustness, and clinical usefulness of DL for this objective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.