ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2026
Evaluation of automated tooth landmark localization on digital models.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of automated algorithm-based versus manual dental landmark placement for model analysis and evaluation of orthodontic quality indices.European journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate agreement between the tooth landmark localization patterns of artificial intelligence (AI) and those from human examiners. Materials and Methods: Three-dimensional (3D) digital dental model images were obtained from 284 participants. On a total of 5583 permanent teeth, six landmarks per tooth were manually identified and annotated using custom-made 3D annotation software. To develop an AI model capable of automatically identifying tooth landmarks, a deep-learning algorithm was applied to a training dataset consisting of 4519 teeth. To select the optimal AI model, datasets of 556 and 508 teeth were used as validation and test datasets, respectively. For intraexaminer and interexaminer reliability tests, 280 teeth from 10 participants were randomly selected, and two human examiners identified the same six landmarks on two separate occasions. Results: The mean error in tooth landmark localization of the AI model ranged from 0.01 mm to 1.68 mm. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the AI model and human examiner for all landmarks was excellent, ranging from 0.97 to 1.0. The landmark localization error from the AI model was smaller than human interexaminer differences for mesial and distal proximal points. However, errors for the cusp tip and facial axis points were greater in the AI model than the interexaminer differences. Conclusions: AI exhibited localization accuracy for tooth landmarks comparable with that of human examiners for specific measurements related to tooth size. Nonetheless, its accuracy still needs improvement to match that of orthodontic clinicians in identifying cusp tips and facial axis points.
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.