Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Acceptability, deviation, and efficiency of automated artificial intelligence-based implant planning methods: A comparison with human intelligence.

Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists·2026
Same author

Federated Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting for Individual Treatment Effect Estimation.

ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology·2026
Same author

Preoperative Prediction of Subtype and Artificial Intelligence-Driven Endomicroscopy Detection of Advanced Neoplasia in Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms.

Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy·2026
Same author

Orthodontic treatment changes in bone mineral density distribution of maxillary alveolar bone in adolescent patients.

The Angle orthodontist·2026
Same author

A Rigorous Behavior Assessment of CNNs Using a Data-Domain Sampling Regime.

IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics·2025
Same author

Artificial Intelligence Advances Digital Pathomics for Confocal Endomicroscopy Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cysts.

Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy·2025
Same journal

Correction: Komatsu et al. Three-Dimensional Visualization and Detection of the Pulmonary Venous-Left Atrium Connection Using Artificial Intelligence in Fetal Cardiac Ultrasound Screening. <i>Bioengineering</i> 2026, <i>13</i>, 100.

Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same journal

Comparison of CO<sub>2</sub> Laser and Microdebrider in the Surgical Treatment of Pediatric Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis: A Retrospective Analysis.

Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same journal

Toward More Translational Tumor Models: Breast dECM-Based 3D Systems Capture Native Microenvironmental Cues.

Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same journal

Postural Stability Changes During the 4 Phases of the Half Squat: Kinematics Profile of the Center of Pressure and Center of Mass in High-Performance Weightlifters-A Pilot Study.

Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same journal

Definite Implant Position as Novel Readout for Effectiveness of Ridge Preservation Indicates to Beneficial Effect of Combined Treatment with Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) and Xenogenic Biomaterial in Bone Regeneration.

Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same journal

Trueness and Precision of Intraoral Scanners for 3D-Printed Orthodontic Models with Attachments: An In Vitro Comparative Study.

Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 12, 2025

Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment
07:32

Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment

Published on: February 23, 2024

1.0K

Effectiveness of Machine Learning in Predicting Orthodontic Tooth Extractions: A Multi-Institutional Study.

Lily E Etemad1, J Parker Heiner1, A A Amin2

  • 1Division of Orthodontics, The Ohio State University, 305 W. 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.

Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)
|September 27, 2024
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Machine learning models accurately predict orthodontic extraction needs using patient data. Maxillary and mandibular crowding were key predictors, advancing AI support for clinical decisions.

Keywords:
artificial intelligencecross-institutional predictionorthodontic tooth extraction

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Advancing CBCT and Digital Dental Image Integration with AI-Assisted Digitization
05:49

Author Spotlight: Advancing CBCT and Digital Dental Image Integration with AI-Assisted Digitization

Published on: February 23, 2024

787
Studying Orthodontic Tooth Movement in Mice
07:17

Studying Orthodontic Tooth Movement in Mice

Published on: August 2, 2024

634

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 12, 2025

Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment
07:32

Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment

Published on: February 23, 2024

1.0K
Author Spotlight: Advancing CBCT and Digital Dental Image Integration with AI-Assisted Digitization
05:49

Author Spotlight: Advancing CBCT and Digital Dental Image Integration with AI-Assisted Digitization

Published on: February 23, 2024

787
Studying Orthodontic Tooth Movement in Mice
07:17

Studying Orthodontic Tooth Movement in Mice

Published on: August 2, 2024

634

Area of Science:

  • Dentistry
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Medical Informatics

Background:

  • Orthodontic treatment planning often involves complex decisions regarding tooth extraction.
  • Predicting the need for extraction versus non-extraction treatment can significantly impact treatment outcomes and duration.
  • Leveraging machine learning offers a potential avenue for objective and data-driven treatment planning.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the efficacy of machine learning models in predicting the necessity of extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment.
  • To compare the performance of models trained on data from two distinct university institutions.
  • To identify key clinical and cephalometric features influencing extraction decisions.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized datasets from two universities, comprising 1135 orthodontic patients.
  • Developed and applied Random Forest (RF) models using 20 input features (9 clinical, 11 cephalometric).
  • Assessed model performance using sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and feature ranking; performed cross-prediction between datasets.

Main Results:

  • The combined dataset model achieved the highest performance: 50% sensitivity, 97% specificity, and 85% accuracy.
  • Cross-prediction between University 1 and University 2 models resulted in a performance decrease of 0%–20%.
  • Maxillary and mandibular crowding were identified as the most influential features for extraction decisions.

Conclusions:

  • Machine learning, particularly RF models, demonstrates significant potential in aiding orthodontic treatment planning for extraction decisions.
  • Models trained on combined data show robust predictive capabilities, though cross-institutional application requires careful validation.
  • Maxillary and mandibular crowding are critical factors that AI models can effectively utilize for predicting treatment pathways.