ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Prediction of Orthodontic Extraction Decisions Using Machine Learning Algorithms: A Retrospective Study.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Orthodontic extraction decision-making remains difficult and highly subjective, particularly in marginal cases where the clinicalcues are ambiguous. Objectives: To design machine learning (ML) models for prediction of extraction vs. non-extraction decision-making and estimate the influenceof key clinical predictors on such decisions. Material and Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed on 120 patients with extraction and 80 patients without extraction from asample of pretreatment records over 2 years. Five ML models including Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), Support VectorMachine (SVM), Decision Tree (DT) and XGBoost are employed in this research by applying Python's Scikit-learn. The datasetwas divided in two parts for training and testing at a ratio of 70:30. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and AUC-ROCwere used to evaluate and compare the performance of the models. In order to rank the most important features for decision-making, feature importance was calculated. Results: RF model provided the highest accuracy (93.5%) and AUC-ROC (0.95) values, whereas XGBoost was the second-bestmodel, with accuracy (90.2%) and AUC-ROC (0.92). Mandibular crowding (weight = 0.28) and IMPA (L1-MP angle,weight = 0.22) were the most influential predictors. Conclusions: Ensemble ML models, in particular RF, yield a promising objective methodology for clinical decision support in orthodontics topotentially lessen inter-clinician variation and enhance consistency in treatment planning.
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.