Automatic 3-Dimensional Cephalometric Landmarking via Deep Learning. (October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dot, G.; Schouman, T.; Chang, S.; Rafflenbeul, F.; Kerbrat, A.; Rouch, P.; Gajny, L.
• Is Part Of: Journal of dental research. Volume 101:Number 11(2022)
• Page Start: 1380
• Page End: 1387
• Publication Date: 2022-10
• Subjects: anatomic landmarks -- orthodontics -- computed x ray tomography -- computer-assisted radiographic image interpretation -- computer-assisted surgery -- artificial intelligence; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Social aspects -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Research -- Periodicals; 617.6005
• DOI: 10.1177/00220345221112333
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-0345

Abstract

The increasing use of 3-dimensional (3D) imaging by orthodontists and maxillofacial surgeons to assess complex dentofacial deformities and plan orthognathic surgeries implies a critical need for 3D cephalometric analysis. Although promising methods were suggested to localize 3D landmarks automatically, concerns about robustness and generalizability restrain their clinical use. Consequently, highly trained operators remain needed to perform manual landmarking. In this retrospective diagnostic study, we aimed to train and evaluate a deep learning (DL) pipeline based on SpatialConfiguration-Net for automatic localization of 3D cephalometric landmarks on computed tomography (CT) scans. A retrospective sample of consecutive presurgical CT scans was randomly distributed between a training/validation set ( n = 160) and a test set ( n = 38). The reference data consisted of 33 landmarks, manually localized once by 1 operator( n = 178) or twice by 3 operators ( n = 20, test set only). After inference on the test set, 1 CT scan showed "very low" confidence level predictions; we excluded it from the overall analysis but still assessed and discussed the corresponding results. The model performance was evaluated by comparing the predictions with the reference data; the outcome set included localization accuracy, cephalometric measurements, and comparison to manual landmarking reproducibility. On the hold-out test set, the mean localization error was 1.0 ± 1.3 mm, while success detection rates for 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 mm were 90.4%, 93.6%, and 95.4%, respectively. Mean errors were −0.3 ± 1.3° and −0.1 ± 0.7 mm for angular and linear measurements, respectively. When compared to manual reproducibility, the measurements were within the Bland–Altman 95% limits of agreement for 91.9% and 71.8% of skeletal and dentoalveolar variables, respectively. To conclude, while our DL method still requires improvement, it provided highly accurate 3D landmark localization on a challenging test set, with a reliability for skeletal evaluation on par with what clinicians obtain.