Accuracy and reliability of automatic three-dimensional cephalometric landmarking. Issue 10 (October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dot, G.; Rafflenbeul, F.; Arbotto, M.; Gajny, L.; Rouch, P.; Schouman, T.
• Is Part Of: International journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery. Volume 49:Issue 10(2020:Oct.)
• Page Start: 1367
• Page End: 1378
• Publication Date: 2020-10
• Subjects: imaging -- three-dimensional -- cephalometry -- anatomic Landmarks -- tomography -- X-ray computed -- radiographic image interpretation -- computer-assisted -- algorithms; Mouth -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentistry, Operative; Oral Surgical Procedures; Surgery, Oral; Dentistry; Maxilla -- Surgery; Mouth -- Surgery; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 617.52059
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.02.015
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0901-5027

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the accuracy and reliability of automatic landmarking for cephalometric analysis of three-dimensional craniofacial images. We searched for studies that reported results of automatic landmarking and/or measurements of human head computed tomography or cone beam computed tomography scans in MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science until March 2019. Two authors independently screened articles for eligibility. Risk of bias and applicability concerns for each included study were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Eleven studies with test dataset sample sizes ranging from 18 to 77 images were included. They used knowledge-, atlas- or learning-based algorithms to landmark two to 33 points of cephalometric interest. Ten studies measured mean localization errors between manually and automatically detected landmarks. Depending on the studies and the landmarks, mean errors ranged from <0.50 mm to>5 mm. The two best-performing algorithms used a deep learning method and reported mean errors <2 mm for every landmark, approximating results of operator variability in manual landmarking. Risk of bias regarding patient selection and implementation of the reference standard were found, therefore the studies might have yielded overoptimistic results. The robustness of these algorithms needs to be more thoroughly tested in challenging clinical settings. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019119637.