ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2026
Oral radiologists and orthodontists' attitude regarding the use of artificial intelligence for cephalometric analysis.
Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the knowledge and attitude of specialists in orthodontics and oral radiology in relation to artificial intelligence (AI) and its use in cephalometric analysis.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with electronic questionnaires distributed to Brazilian orthodontists and oral radiologists. Demographic and professional data were collected, as well data on general use of AI and cephalometric-related use of AI. Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and χ
resultsA total of 139 questionnaires were answered. Reported knowledge regarding AI showed a significant association with the questions 1) presence of AI in daily life (P = 0.021), 2) having AI as a topic in lectures during their education (P = 0.010), and 3) willingness to incorporate AI into dentistry (P = 0.002). Oral radiologists were more willing to incorporate AI into clinical practice (P = 0.004), while orthodontists agreed more with the idea of including the AI diagnosis together with the one delivered by the clinician (P = 0.014). Most participants welcomed the use of fully automated software to identify landmarks in cephalometric analysis (78.4%) and believed that human error is greater than AI's during landmark identification (52.5%).
conclusionBrazilian orthodontists and oral radiologists acknowledge the use of AI and express positive attitudes and confidence toward its application in cephalometric analysis. Professionals who reported greater knowledge of AI demonstrated more openness to incorporating this technology into their clinical routine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41670638What 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.