SynthesisClinical oral investigations2026
Artificial intelligence for craniofacial and mandibular growth prediction: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 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
objectivesThe primary objective was to evaluate the predictive performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models for craniofacial and mandibular growth prediction. Secondary objectives were to assess methodological quality and identify research gaps. MATERIALS AND
methodsNine databases were searched through August 12, 2026, supplemented by manual searches. Human studies assessing AI-based models for craniofacial or mandibular growth prediction were included. Study characteristics, prediction intervals, AI approaches, performance metrics, and validation strategies were extracted. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using PROBAST.
resultsTwelve studies were included. Six assessed overall craniofacial growth, whereas six mandibular development. Prediction horizons ranged from ≤ 1.5 to approximately 10 years, with sample sizes of 33-639 participants. Predictive accuracy varied by anatomical region and methodological approach. Sex and malocclusion type were frequently used to define study populations but were not consistently incorporated as predictors, whereas ethnicity and skeletal maturation were rarely considered. Seven studies had overall high risk of bias and five unclear risk, mainly due to analytical limitations and inadequate validation.
conclusionAI-based models show promising predictive performance; however, current evidence is insufficient to establish superiority over traditional statistical methods. Overall high or unclear risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity in study populations and datasets, prediction horizons, outcome definitions, and AI modelling approaches limit confidence in the findings. Standardized multicenter datasets and independent external validation are required before clinical implementation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: AI-based growth prediction may support individualized orthodontic diagnosis and treatment timing, but current evidence does not support routine clinical use.
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.