ArticlePloS one2024
Deep learning for 3D cephalometric landmarking with heterogeneous multi-center CBCT dataset.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies in Orthognathic and Reconstructive Maxillofacial Surgery: Data Availability and Evidence Maturity.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Cross-Domain Generalization of Deep Learning Architectures for Cephalometric Landmark Detection: A Dual-Dataset and Multi-Device Benchmark.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Immersive Virtual Reality for 3D Cephalometric Landmarking Across Low-Dose and Ultra-Low-Dose CBCT: A Pilot Comparison with a Conventional Computer Interface.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Automatic identification of anatomical landmarks in three-dimensional computed tomography/cone-beam computed tomography: a scoping review.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- A deep learning framework for automated dental segmentation and diagnostic report generation from cone-beam computed tomography.Head & face medicine · 2025Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment planning of orthodontics: a narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Review
- Orthodontic Biomechanical Reasoning with Multimodal Language Models: Performance and Clinical Utility.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Automated landmark-based mid-sagittal plane: reliability for 3-dimensional mandibular asymmetry assessment on head CT scans.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Automatic identification of hard and soft tissue landmarks in cone-beam computed tomography via deep learning with diversity datasets: a methodological study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- AI-driven dynamic orthodontic treatment management: personalized progress tracking and adjustments-a narrative review.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Review
- Multi-Scale 3D Cephalometric Landmark Detection Based on Direct Regression with 3D CNN Architectures.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cephalometric analysis is critically important and common procedure prior to orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery. Recently, deep learning approaches have been proposed for automatic 3D cephalometric analysis based on landmarking from CBCT scans. However, these approaches have relied on uniform datasets from a single center or imaging device but without considering patient ethnicity. In addition, previous works have considered a limited number of clinically relevant cephalometric landmarks and the approaches were computationally infeasible, both impairing integration into clinical workflow. Here our aim is to analyze the clinical applicability of a light-weight deep learning neural network for fast localization of 46 clinically significant cephalometric landmarks with multi-center, multi-ethnic, and multi-device data consisting of 309 CBCT scans from Finnish and Thai patients. The localization performance of our approach resulted in the mean distance of 1.99 ± 1.55 mm for the Finnish cohort and 1.96 ± 1.25 mm for the Thai cohort. This performance turned out to be clinically significant i.e., ≤ 2 mm with 61.7% and 64.3% of the landmarks with Finnish and Thai cohorts, respectively. Furthermore, the estimated landmarks were used to measure cephalometric characteristics successfully i.e., with ≤ 2 mm or ≤ 2° error, on 85.9% of the Finnish and 74.4% of the Thai cases. Between the two patient cohorts, 33 of the landmarks and all cephalometric characteristics had no statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) measured by the Mann-Whitney U test with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. Moreover, our method is found to be computationally light, i.e., providing the predictions with the mean duration of 0.77 s and 2.27 s with single machine GPU and CPU computing, respectively. Our findings advocate for the inclusion of this method into clinical settings based on its technical feasibility and robustness across varied clinical datasets.
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.