SynthesisClinical oral investigations2022
Accuracy of artificial intelligence for tooth extraction decision-making in orthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of artificial intelligence in orthodontic extraction treatment planning: a systematic review and meta analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in orthodontics: clinical maturity, evidence gaps, and emerging applications-a narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Review
- Considerations in Using Artificial Intelligence to Simulate Orthodontic Treatment for Implant-Prosthetic Purposes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Machine Learning and Clustering Analysis of Class II and III Malocclusions.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Observational
- The transformative impact of artificial intelligence on periodontal care: A review.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in dentistry: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis.Evidence-based dentistry · 2025Review
- Shaping Orthodontics of the Future: Concepts and Implications from a Cellular and Molecular Perspective.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Automated classification of skeletal malocclusion in German orthodontic patients.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- The Validation of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Software for the Detection and Numbering of Primary Teeth on Panoramic Radiographs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence in orthodontics: a bibliometric and visual analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence in determining extraction protocol in orthodontic patients: A systematic review.Journal of orthodontic science · 2025Review
- AI in Orthodontics: Revolutionizing Diagnostics and Treatment Planning-A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Attitude, perception and barriers of dental professionals towards artificial intelligence.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to analyze the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for orthodontic tooth extraction decision-making. MATERIALS AND
methodsPubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus, LIVIVO, Computers & Applied Science, ACM Digital Library, Compendex, and gray literature (OpenGrey, ProQuest, and Google Scholar) were electronically searched. Three independent reviewers selected the studies and extracted and analyzed the data. Risk of bias, methodological quality, and certainty of evidence were assessed by QUADAS-2, checklist for AI research, and GRADE, respectively.
resultsThe search identified 1810 studies. After 2 phases of selection, six studies were included, showing an unclear risk of bias of patient selection. Two studies showed a high risk of bias in the index test, while two others presented an unclear risk of bias in the diagnostic test. Data were pooled in a random model and yielded an accuracy value of 0.87 (95% CI = 0.75-0.96) for all studies, 0.89 (95% CI = 0.70-1.00) for multilayer perceptron, and 0.88 (95% CI = 0.73-0.98) for back propagation models. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of the multilayer perceptron model yielded 0.84 (95% CI = 0.58-1.00), 0.89 (95% CI = 0.74-0.98), and 0.92 (95% CI = 0.72-1.00) scores, respectively. Sagittal discrepancy, upper crowding, and protrusion showed the highest ranks weighted in the models.
conclusionsOrthodontic tooth extraction decision-making using AI presented promising accuracy but should be considered with caution due to the very low certainty of evidence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: AI models for tooth extraction decision in orthodontics cannot yet be considered a substitute for a final human decision.
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.