Questa pagina è stata tradotta automaticamente e l'accuratezza della traduzione non è garantita. Si prega di fare riferimento al Versione inglese per un testo di partenza.

AI-Assisted Versus Conventional Orthodontic Diagnosis and Treatment Planning (AI-OrthoDx)

2 luglio 2026 aggiornato da: Dr. Salah Mohammed Salem Ben Hafedh, Ben Hafeed Dental Center

Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Versus Conventional Orthodontic Diagnosis and Treatment Planning: A Prospective Paired Diagnostic-Agreement Study

This study compared an artificial intelligence-assisted orthodontic diagnostic workflow using WebCeph with a conventional clinician-based workflow.

The study included 120 new orthodontic patients treated at Ben Hafeed Dental Center in Sana'a, Yemen, between March 2024 and March 2026. For each participant, the researchers prepared a de-identified package of routine pretreatment records, including clinical findings, extraoral and intraoral photographs, panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs, and dental models or digital scans.

The same case package was independently assessed using both the artificial intelligence-assisted and conventional workflows. An independent panel of five expert orthodontists reviewed the cases and established the reference standard.

The main outcome was agreement with the expert panel for skeletal sagittal classification as Class I, Class II, or Class III. Other outcomes included orthodontic treatment-need grades, premolar extraction decisions, anchorage planning, appliance selection, and the time required to complete each diagnostic workflow.

Participation did not alter the routine orthodontic care provided to patients, and final clinical decisions remained the responsibility of the treating orthodontist.

Panoramica dello studio

Descrizione dettagliata

This was a prospective paired diagnostic-agreement study conducted at Ben Hafeed Dental Center, Sana'a, Yemen, from March 2024 to March 2026.

A total of 120 eligible new orthodontic patients were included. Each participant contributed one standardized, de-identified pretreatment case package. Every case was evaluated using both an artificial intelligence-assisted workflow and a conventional clinician-based workflow, allowing direct within-case comparison.

The artificial intelligence-assisted workflow used WebCeph Premium, software version 2.0.3 (AssembleCircle Corp., Seongnam-si, Republic of Korea). The lateral cephalometric radiograph was uploaded to the software for automated anatomical landmark identification and generation of angular and linear cephalometric measurements. The original automated landmarks and measurements were recorded without manual correction. The reviewer interpreted the automated findings together with the remaining standardized pretreatment records and entered the required diagnostic and treatment-planning decisions.

For the conventional workflow, two calibrated orthodontists independently reviewed each case using routine clinical, photographic, radiographic, cephalometric, and dental-model assessment. Conventional cephalometric evaluation was performed using manual landmark identification through a local Dolphin Imaging-based workflow. When the two conventional orthodontists disagreed on an endpoint, a third calibrated orthodontist adjudicated the disputed decision.

The reference standard was established by an independent panel of five experienced orthodontists. Each expert independently reviewed the de-identified cases while blinded to the artificial intelligence-assisted and conventional workflow results. Reference decisions were established through majority agreement, with additional review and structured adjudication when required.

The primary endpoint was skeletal sagittal classification, categorized as Class I, Class II, or Class III. Secondary endpoints included the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need Dental Health Component, the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need Aesthetic Component, premolar extraction decision, anchorage-plan category, and primary appliance modality. Workflow duration was measured from the beginning of case assessment until all required decisions had been entered.

The study included 71 females and 49 males. The mean participant age was 20.3 years, with a standard deviation of 3.9 years and a range of 14 to 33 years.

The protocol was approved by the Yemen Dental Association under approval number 207. Written informed consent was obtained from adult participants. For minors, written parental or legal-guardian permission and participant assent were obtained.

Tipo di studio

Osservativo

Iscrizione (Effettivo)

120

Contatti e Sedi

Questa sezione fornisce i recapiti di coloro che conducono lo studio e informazioni su dove viene condotto lo studio.

Luoghi di studio

      • Sanaa, Yemen
        • Ben Hafeed Dental Center

Criteri di partecipazione

I ricercatori cercano persone che corrispondano a una certa descrizione, chiamata criteri di ammissibilità. Alcuni esempi di questi criteri sono le condizioni generali di salute di una persona o trattamenti precedenti.

Criteri di ammissibilità

Età idonea allo studio

  • Bambino
  • Adulto
  • Adulto più anziano

Accetta volontari sani

No

Metodo di campionamento

Campione non probabilistico

Popolazione di studio

The study population consisted of new orthodontic patients presenting for assessment at Ben Hafeed Dental Center in Sana'a, Yemen, from March 2024 to March 2026. Eligible participants were aged 12 years or older and had complete, good-quality routine pretreatment orthodontic records. Each enrolled participant contributed one standardized, de-identified case package that was assessed using both the AI-assisted and conventional diagnostic workflows.

Descrizione

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. New orthodontic patients aged 12 years or older.
  2. Availability of complete routine pretreatment records, including clinical examination data, standardized extraoral and intraoral photographs, panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs, and dental models or digital scans.
  3. Pretreatment records of sufficient quality to permit comprehensive orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning.
  4. Provision of written informed consent by adult participants or written parental or legal-guardian permission, together with participant assent for minors, in accordance with applicable local requirements.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Cleft lip and/or palate or another craniofacial syndrome that substantially altered the routine orthodontic diagnostic pathway.
  2. A history of previous comprehensive fixed orthodontic treatment.
  3. Incomplete, poor-quality, or non-standardized records that prevented comprehensive orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning.
  4. Refusal to participate or subsequent withdrawal of consent.

Piano di studio

Questa sezione fornisce i dettagli del piano di studio, compreso il modo in cui lo studio è progettato e ciò che lo studio sta misurando.

Come è strutturato lo studio?

Dettagli di progettazione

Cosa sta misurando lo studio?

Misure di risultato primarie

Misura del risultato
Misura Descrizione
Lasso di tempo
Exact Agreement With the Expert Panel for Skeletal Sagittal Classification
Lasso di tempo: At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Proportion of participant cases in which the skeletal sagittal classification assigned by each diagnostic workflow exactly agreed with the expert-panel reference classification. Classification was categorized as Class I, Class II, or Class III. Agreement was reported separately for the AI-assisted and conventional workflows using percentage agreement and unweighted Cohen's kappa with 95% confidence intervals. Paired classification accuracy was compared using McNemar's test.
At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.

Misure di risultato secondarie

Misura del risultato
Misura Descrizione
Lasso di tempo
Agreement With the Expert Panel for IOTN Dental Health Component Grade
Lasso di tempo: At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Agreement between each workflow and the expert-panel reference grade for the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need Dental Health Component, graded from 1 to 5. Outcomes included exact agreement, agreement within one grade, weighted Cohen's kappa with 95% confidence intervals, and absolute grade deviation.
At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Agreement With the Expert Panel for IOTN Aesthetic Component Grade
Lasso di tempo: At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Agreement between each workflow and the expert-panel reference grade for the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need Aesthetic Component, graded from 1 to 10. Outcomes included exact agreement, agreement within one grade, weighted Cohen's kappa with 95% confidence intervals, and absolute grade deviation.
At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Diagnostic Accuracy for the Premolar Extraction Decision
Lasso di tempo: At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Accuracy of each workflow in classifying whether premolar extraction was indicated, using the expert-panel decision as the reference standard. Outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, overall accuracy, and unweighted Cohen's kappa with 95% confidence intervals.
At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Agreement With the Expert Panel for Anchorage-Plan Category
Lasso di tempo: At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Proportion of participant cases in which the anchorage-plan category assigned by each workflow agreed with the expert-panel reference decision. Categories were conventional anchorage, reinforced anchorage, or skeletal anchorage. Agreement was evaluated using percentage agreement and unweighted Cohen's kappa.
At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Agreement With the Expert Panel for Primary Appliance Modality
Lasso di tempo: At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Proportion of participant cases in which the primary appliance modality selected by each workflow agreed with the expert-panel reference decision. Categories were fixed appliance, clear aligner, or functional appliance. Agreement was evaluated using percentage agreement and unweighted Cohen's kappa.
At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Time Required to Complete the Diagnostic and Treatment-Planning Workflow
Lasso di tempo: During the baseline diagnostic assessment; measured continuously from case opening to completion, within 1 day.
Total time in minutes from opening the standardized case package until all required diagnostic and treatment-planning decisions were entered. For the conventional workflow, the mean of the two initial orthodontists' assessment times was used. Third-rater adjudication time was excluded. The within-case paired difference between workflows was calculated.
During the baseline diagnostic assessment; measured continuously from case opening to completion, within 1 day.

Collaboratori e investigatori

Qui è dove troverai le persone e le organizzazioni coinvolte in questo studio.

Studiare le date dei record

Queste date tengono traccia dell'avanzamento della registrazione dello studio e dell'invio dei risultati di sintesi a ClinicalTrials.gov. I record degli studi e i risultati riportati vengono esaminati dalla National Library of Medicine (NLM) per assicurarsi che soddisfino specifici standard di controllo della qualità prima di essere pubblicati sul sito Web pubblico.

Studia le date principali

Inizio studio (Effettivo)

3 marzo 2024

Completamento primario (Effettivo)

31 marzo 2026

Completamento dello studio (Effettivo)

31 marzo 2026

Date di iscrizione allo studio

Primo inviato

2 luglio 2026

Primo inviato che soddisfa i criteri di controllo qualità

2 luglio 2026

Primo Inserito (Effettivo)

8 luglio 2026

Aggiornamenti dei record di studio

Ultimo aggiornamento pubblicato (Effettivo)

8 luglio 2026

Ultimo aggiornamento inviato che soddisfa i criteri QC

2 luglio 2026

Ultimo verificato

1 luglio 2026

Maggiori informazioni

Termini relativi a questo studio

Informazioni su farmaci e dispositivi, documenti di studio

Studia un prodotto farmaceutico regolamentato dalla FDA degli Stati Uniti

No

Studia un dispositivo regolamentato dalla FDA degli Stati Uniti

No

Queste informazioni sono state recuperate direttamente dal sito web clinicaltrials.gov senza alcuna modifica. In caso di richieste di modifica, rimozione o aggiornamento dei dettagli dello studio, contattare register@clinicaltrials.gov. Non appena verrà implementata una modifica su clinicaltrials.gov, questa verrà aggiornata automaticamente anche sul nostro sito web .

Prove cliniche su Malocclusione, Classe Angle II

3
Sottoscrivi