ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Accuracy and reliability of 3D cephalometric landmark detection with deep learning.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies in Orthognathic and Reconstructive Maxillofacial Surgery: Data Availability and Evidence Maturity.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Transformer and generative models in dental and maxillofacial imaging: Narrative review of clinical evidence and future directions.Imaging science in dentistry · 2026Review
- 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
- Left-Right Consistency and Quantification of Craniofacial Asymmetry by Two Fully Automatic AI-Powered Three-Dimensional Cephalometry Systems on CBCT.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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThree-dimensional (3D) landmark detection is essential for assessing craniofacial growth and planning surgeries, such as orthodontic, orthognathic, traumatic, and plastic procedures. This study aimed to develop an automatic 3D landmarking model for oral and maxillofacial regions and to validate its accuracy, robustness and generalizability in both spiral computed tomography (SCT, 41 landmarks) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT, 14 landmarks) scans.
methodsThe model was implemented using an optimized lightweight 3D U-Net network architecture. Its accuracy, robustness and generalizability were thoroughly evaluated and validated through a multicenter retrospective diagnostic study. The model was trained and tested on a data set of 480 SCT and 240 CBCT cases. An additional inference on a different data set of 320 SCT and 150 CBCT cases was performed. Mean radial error (MRE) and success detection rate within 2-, 3-, and 4-mm error thresholds were measured as the primary evaluation metrics. Error analyses for landmark detection along each coordinate axis were performed. Consistency tests among observers were conducted.
resultsThe average MRE for both SCT and CBCT was consistently below 1.3 mm and, notably, below 1.4 mm in complex conditions, such as malocclusion, missing dental landmarks, and the presence of metal artifacts. No significant differences in MRE and SDR at 2-4 mm were observed between external and internal SCT and CBCT sets. SCT bone landmarks were more precise than dental ones, with no difference between bone/soft tissue and dental/soft tissue. CBCT dental landmarks exhibited greater precision compared to bone landmarks. A detailed error analysis across the coordinate axes showed that the coronal axis had the highest error rates. The implementation of this model significantly improved the landmarking proficiency of senior and junior specialists by 15.9% and 28.9%, respectively, while also achieving a 6-9.5-fold acceleration in GUI interaction time.
conclusionsThis study shows that the AI-driven model delivers high-precision 3D localization of oral and maxillofacial landmarks, even in complex scenarios. The model demonstrates potential as a promising computer-aided tool to assist specialists in conducting accurate and efficient localization analyses; however, its robustness and generalizability require prospective clinical validation to ensure utility across varied experience levels.
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.