Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 1, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing CBCT and Digital Dental Image Integration with AI-Assisted Digitization
Published on: February 23, 2024
Diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders using artificial intelligence technologies: A systematic review and
Nayansi Jha1, Kwang-Sig Lee2, Yoon-Ji Kim3
1University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Background:
Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been applied to diagnose temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). However, studies have used different patient selection criteria, disease subtypes, input data, and outcome measures. Resultantly, the performance of the AI models varies.
Objective:
This study aimed to systematically summarize the current literature on the application of AI technologies for diagnosis of different TMD subtypes, evaluate the quality of these studies, and assess the diagnostic accuracy of existing AI models.
Materials And Methods:
The study protocol was carried out based on the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA). The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched to find relevant articles from database inception to June 2022. Studies that used AI algorithms to diagnose at least one subtype of TMD and those that assessed the performance of AI algorithms were included. We excluded studies on orofacial pain that were not directly related to the TMD, such as studies on atypical facial pain and neuropathic pain, editorials, book chapters, and excerpts without detailed empirical data. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to provide certainty of evidence.
Results:
A total of 17 articles for automated diagnosis of masticatory muscle disorders, TMJ osteoarthrosis, internal derangement, and disc perforation were included; they were retrospective studies, case-control studies, cohort studies, and a pilot study. Seven studies were subjected to a meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy. According to the GRADE, the certainty of evidence was very low. The performance of the AI models had accuracy and specificity ranging from 84% to 99.9% and 73% to 100%, respectively. The pooled accuracy was 0.91 (95% CI 0.76-0.99), I2 = 97% (95% CI 0.96-0.98), p < 0.001.
Conclusions:
Various AI algorithms developed for diagnosing TMDs may provide additional clinical expertise to increase diagnostic accuracy. However, it should be noted that a high risk of bias was present in the included studies. Also, certainty of evidence was very low. Future research of higher quality is strongly recommended.
