ArticleInternational dental journal2026
Comparing Deep Learning Models for Identifying Maxillary Transverse Deficiency from Intraoral Photographs.
Article in International dental journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimsMaxillary transverse deficiency (MTD) is conventionally evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), which entails increased radiation exposure, cost, and clinical workload. Frontal intraoral photographs are routinely obtained in orthodontic practice. Using CBCT-derived transverse measurements as reference standards, we developed, validated, and compared multiple deep learning (DL) models to assess the feasibility of identifying MTD from frontal intraoral photographs.
methodsThis study included 826 internal and 192 external patients who underwent paired frontal intraoral photographs and CBCT. MTD was determined based on the University of Pennsylvania analysis (UPA) and Yonsei transverse analysis (YTA) labels. DenseNet 121, ResNet 18, EfficientNet B0/B3, and MobileNetV3 Small/Large were trained separately on photographs using UPA- and YTA-based labels. Five-fold cross-validation was employed, and performance was evaluated on the internal and external test sets using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 scores, along with confusion matrices and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. DeLong's test assessed the differences between the models.
resultsIn the external test set under the UPA labelling scheme, ResNet 18 achieved the highest accuracy (90.62%). Under the YTA labelling scheme, DenseNet 121 and ResNet 18 achieved the highest accuracy (96.88%). Across all internal and external test sets using both labelling schemes, DenseNet 121 and ResNet 18 yielded the best overall performance, and no statistically significant difference was observed between the two models (P > .05).
conclusionsThe DL models demonstrated strong potential for analysing frontal intraoral photographs to detect MTD. These findings provide initial insights into the use of DL models to identify MTD from frontal intraoral photographs for orthodontic purposes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates the feasibility of using DL-based recognition of frontal intraoral photographs to identify MTD. As a cost-effective adjunctive tool, the proposed approach may assist clinicians in identifying MTD and help improve case selection for CBCT imaging.
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.