ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2026
Quantitative evaluation of an artificial intelligence-driven remote monitoring system for occlusion assessment using patient-captured images.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 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
Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI) model developed by DentalMonitoring for assessing occlusal parameters from patient-acquired intraoral images, using intraoral scanner (IOS)-derived three-dimensional (3D)measurements as the reference standard. Materials and Methods: This multicenter prospective study included 430 orthodontic patients from three clinics in the United States. Each participant completed a DentalMonitoring scan using the DM ScanBox and a clinician-acquired IOS scan. Midline deviation, overbite, overjet, and canine class were measured on IOS-generated 3D models using metrology-grade software (ZEISS Inspect). Three independent, blinded technicians performed measurements, with the median value used as the reference. Agreement between AI-generated and reference measurements was assessed using Passing-Bablok regression and relative bias analyses at predefined clinical thresholds. Results: All occlusal parameters demonstrated agreement within clinically acceptable limits. Midline deviation and overbite showed the highest concordance, with intercepts near 0.00 mm, relative biases below 3%, and mean biases of -0.01 ± 0.26 mm and -0.04 ± 0.39 mm, respectively. Overjet was modestly overestimated (mean bias = +0.29 ± 0.52 mm), while canine class showed increasing underestimation at higher values (mean bias = -0.31 ± 0.91 mm). Conclusions: The evaluated AI model demonstrated high agreement with IOS-based 3D measurements for midline deviation and overbite, with greater variability for overjet and canine classification. These results support the use of AI-assisted monitoring for screening and follow-up, while highlighting the need for further validation prior to routine clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42225257What 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.