ReviewCureus2026
Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontics: From Laboratory Benchmarks to Clinical Care.
Review in Cureus, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is now used in routine orthodontic practice, not only in research, but how well it works depends heavily on the application. This narrative review synthesises peer-reviewed studies published between 2019 and early 2026 across seven task domains: cephalometric landmark detection, cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) staging, treatment-decision support for extraction and orthognathic surgery, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) segmentation, aligner monitoring, treatment-outcome prediction, and large language model (LLM) patient communication, which differ markedly in their level of maturity. In cephalometric landmark detection, mean radial errors ran from roughly 1.0 mm in three dimensions to about 1.37 mm in two dimensions, and pooled detection reached about 81% at the 2 mm threshold. CBCT segmentation reached pooled Dice similarity coefficients of 0.93 for teeth and 0.91 for the maxilla on multicentre data. Extraction-decision models performed with a sensitivity of 0.70 and a specificity of 0.90, yet lost as much as 20% of their accuracy once tested across institutions. Remote aligner monitoring reduced in-office attendances by roughly 1.68 to 3.5 visits over a treatment course, although the same platforms detected periodontal status poorly, with sensitivities of only 0.53, 0.35, and 0.22 for plaque and calculus, gingivitis, and recession, respectively. Soft-tissue prediction after orthognathic surgery remained inaccurate at the lip and chin. Patients tended to prefer LLM-generated information about their treatment, whereas orthodontic experts rated the same material less favourably. Three problems recurred across every domain examined: training data confined to single centres, narrow demographic representation, and an absence of independent external validation. None of these applications removed interpretive responsibility from the clinician, who retained the analytical decision, even where AI reduced the computational burden.
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.