Abstract:Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the accuracy and efficiency of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven automated landmark detection for cephalometric analysis on two-dimensional (2D) lateral cephalograms and three-dimensional (3D) cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) images. Search methods: An electronic search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and grey literature with search timeline extending up to January 2024. Selection criteria: Studies that employed AI for 2D or 3D cephalometric landmark detection were included. Data collection and analysis: The selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies were performed independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the 2D landmarks identification based on both mean radial error and standard error. Results: Following the removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening, and full-text reading, 34 publications were selected. Amongst these, 27 studies evaluated the accuracy of AI-driven automated landmarking on 2D lateral cephalograms, while 7 studies involved 3D-CBCT images. A meta-analysis, based on the success detection rate of landmark placement on 2D images, revealed that the error was below the clinically acceptable threshold of 2 mm (1.39 mm; 95% confidence interval: 0.85-1.92 mm). For 3D images, meta-analysis could not be conducted due to significant heterogeneity amongst the study designs. However, qualitative synthesis indicated that the mean error of landmark detection on 3D images ranged from 1.0 to 5.8 mm. Both automated 2D and 3D landmarking proved to be time-efficient, taking less than 1 min. Most studies exhibited a high risk of bias in data selection (n = 27) and reference standard (n = 29). Conclusion: The performance of AI-driven cephalometric landmark detection on both 2D cephalograms and 3D-CBCT images showed potential in terms of accuracy and time efficiency. However, the generalizability and robustness of these AI systems could benefit from further improvement. Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42022328800.

Comparison of semi and fully automated artificial intelligence driven softwares and manual system for cephalometric analysis

Comparative Analysis of 3D Cephalometry Provided with Artificial Intelligence and Manual Tracing

Development, Application, and Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Cephalometric Landmark Identification and Diagnosis: A Systematic Review

Comparison of Three Commercially Available, AI-Driven Cephalometric Analysis Tools in Orthodontics

Reliability and accuracy of Artificial intelligence-based software for cephalometric diagnosis. A diagnostic study

Can artificial intelligence-driven cephalometric analysis replace manual tracing? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of AI-assisted cephalometric analysis and orthodontist-performed digital tracing analysis

Evaluating the accuracy of automated cephalometric analysis based on artificial intelligence

Scope and performance of artificial intelligence technology in orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning, and clinical decision-making - A systematic review

[Automated Recognition and Identification of Soft Tissue Landmarks in Cephalematric Analysis]

Artificial intelligence in orthodontics : Evaluation of a fully automated cephalometric analysis using a customized convolutional neural network

Comparative Evaluation of Digital Cephalometric Tracing Applications on Mobile Devices and Manual Tracing

Development of a Computerized Automatic Identification System for Use in Cephalometry

Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Cephalometric Landmarks: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

AI-based open-source software for cephalometric analysis from limited FOV radiographs

Automated Cephalometric Landmark Detection: A Novel Software Model Compared with Manual Annotation Method

Accuracy of web-based automated versus digital manual cephalometric landmark identification

Comparative study on the results of orthodontic diagnostics by using algorithms generated by Artificial Intelligence and simple algorithms

2D Facial Analysis Performed by a Human Operator Versus an Artificial Intelligence Software

Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontics: A Thorough Assessment of its Influence and Applications

Assessing AudaxCeph®'s cephalometric tracing technology versus a semi-automated approach for analyzing severe Class II and Class III skeletons