ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Automated classification of skeletal malocclusion in German orthodontic patients.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPrecisely diagnosing skeletal class is mandatory for correct orthodontic treatment. Artificial intelligence (AI) could increase efficiency during diagnostics and contribute to automated workflows. So far, no AI-driven process can differentiate between skeletal classes I, II, and III in German orthodontic patients. This prospective cross-sectional study aimed to develop machine- and deep-learning models for diagnosing their skeletal class based on the gold-standard individualised ANB of Panagiotidis and Witt. MATERIALS AND
methodsOrthodontic patients treated in Germany contributed to the study population. Pre-treatment cephalometric parameters, sex, and age served as input variables. Machine-learning models performed were linear discriminant analysis (LDA), random forest (RF), decision tree (DT), K-nearest neighbours (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), Gaussian naïve Bayes (NB), and multi class logistic regression (MCLR). Furthermore, an artificial neural network (ANN) was conducted.
results1277 German patients presented skeletal class I (48.79%), II (27.56%) and III (23.64%). The best machine-learning model, which considered all input parameters, was RF with 100% accuracy, with Calculated_ANB being the most important (0.429). The model with Calculated_ANB only achieved 100% accuracy (KNN), but ANB alone was inappropriate (71-76% accuracy). The ANN with all parameters and Calculated_ANB achieved 95.31% and 100% validation-accuracy, respectively.
conclusionsMachine- and deep-learning methods can correctly determine an individual's skeletal class. Calculated_ANB was the most important among all input parameters, which, therefore, requires precise determination. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The AI methods introduced may help to establish digital and automated workflows in cephalometric diagnostics, which could contribute to the relief of the orthodontic practitioner.
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.