Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40223150›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Machine learning models for improving the diagnosing efficiency of skeletal class I and III in German orthodontic patients.

Eva Paddenberg-Schubert, Kareem Midlej, Sebastian Krohn, Agnes Schröder, Obaida Awadi, Samir Masarwa, Iqbal M Lone, Osayd Zohud, Christian Kirschneck, Nezar Watted and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Eva Paddenberg-Schubert *Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital of Regensburg, University of Regensburg, 93047, Regensburg, Germany.
Kareem Midlej *Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 6997801, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Sebastian Krohn *Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital of Regensburg, University of Regensburg, 93047, Regensburg, Germany.
Agnes SchröderDepartment of Orthodontics, University Hospital of Regensburg, University of Regensburg, 93047, Regensburg, Germany.
Obaida AwadiCenter for Dentistry Research and Aesthetics, 4491800, Jatt, Israel.
Samir MasarwaCenter for Dentistry Research and Aesthetics, 4491800, Jatt, Israel.
Iqbal M LoneDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 6997801, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Osayd ZohudDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 6997801, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Christian KirschneckDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Bonn, 53111, Bonn, Germany.
Nezar WattedCenter for Dentistry Research and Aesthetics, 4491800, Jatt, Israel.
Peter Proff *Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital of Regensburg, University of Regensburg, 93047, Regensburg, Germany.
Fuad A Iraqi *Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital of Regensburg, University of Regensburg, 93047, Regensburg, Germany. fuadi@tauex.tau.ac.il.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The precise and efficient diagnosis of an individual's skeletal class is necessary in orthodontics to ensure correct and stable treatment planning. However, it is difficult to efficiently determine the true skeletal class due to several correlations between various anatomic structures. The primary outcome of this prospective cross-sectional study was developing a machine learning model for classifying patients as skeletal class I and III. Furthermore, the investigation intended to compare cephalometric variables between skeletal class I and III as well as between age and sex-specific subgroups to analyse correlations between cephalometric parameters and to perform Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to identify the most important variables contributing to skeletal class I and III variances. This study was based on the pre-treatment lateral cephalograms of 509 German orthodontic patients diagnosed as skeletal class I (n = 341) or III (n = 168) according to the individualised ANB of Panagiotidis and Witt, following descriptive analyses of cephalometric parameters, correlation analyses followed by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to identify key cephalometric variables. Machine learning models, including Random Forest (RF), Classification and Regression Trees (CART), k-nearest Neighbors (KNN), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), Support Vector Machines (SVM), and Generalized Linear Model (GLM), were evaluated for accuracy. Within the same skeletal class, age influenced cephalometric parameters: in skeletal class I, adolescents presented a more horizontal pattern (PFH/AFH, Gonial angle, NL-ML) and prominent mandible (SNB, SN-Pg) than children. In skeletal class III, the degree of sagittal discrepancy between jaw bases was most notable in adults (ANB: III_Age > 21-III _14 < Age < 20 - 1.78°). Comparing skeletal class I and III, the latter had more prognathic mandibles (SNB) and compensated incisors' inclination (proclination of the upper (+ 1/NA: 9.01°), retroinclination of the lower incisors (- 1/ML: 8.99°). Among others, a correlation was found between the sagittal (degree of prognathism, SNB) and vertical (inclination, ML-NSL) orientation of the mandible (skeletal class I: p < 0.001, ρ = - 0.742; skeletal class III: p < 0.001, ρ = - 0.665). PCA revealed that the first four principal components explain 93% of the variance in skeletal class I/III diagnosis and that these parameters had the most influence loading score on the first component-PFH/AFH ratio (0.35), SNB angle (0.35), SN-Pg (0.37), and ML-NSL (- 0.35). Evaluating machine learning models, the general model, including all cephalometric parameters, age, and sex, resulted in perfect (1.00) accuracy and kappa scores compared to the gold standard Calculated_ANB with the model's RF and CART. In model 2 the amount of input variables was reduced (Wits, SNB only), but the accuracy (0.88), and kappa (0.73) were still good in the KNN model. In the last section of this study, we applied different machine learning classification models. We examined the ability of the parameters-SNA, SNB, and ML-NSL angles to predict the classification as skeletal class I or III. The results demonstrated that the GLM model gained an accuracy of 0.99 (Accuracy = 0.99, Kappa = 0.97). The precise diagnosis of skeletal class I/III can be simplified by applying the machine learning model GLM with the input variables SNA, SNB, and ML-NSL only. This stresses the importance of their correct identification. However, considering all skeletal classes, a larger population is needed to validate and generalize this approach.

Indexed as

Machine LearningMalocclusion, Angle Class IMalocclusion, Angle Class IIIAdolescentAdultCephalometryChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansMalePrincipal Component AnalysisProspective StudiesYoung AdultArtificial intelligenceClass IClass IIIIndividualized treatment planningMalocclusionOrthodontic diagnostics

Identifiers

PMID40223150
PMCPMC11994767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.