Prediction of the Post-Pubertal Mandibular Length and Y Axis of Growth by Using Various Machine Learning Techniques: A Retrospective Longitudinal Study

• Published in: Diagnostics (Basel) Vol. 13; no. 9; p. 1553
• Main Authors: Wood, Tyler, Anigbo, Justina O, Eckert, George, Stewart, Kelton T, Dundar, Mehmet Murat, Turkkahraman, Hakan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 26.04.2023; MDPI
• Subjects: Accuracy; Algorithms; Artificial intelligence; Automation; Confidence intervals; Growth; growth and development; Longitudinal studies; Machine learning; Males; mandible; Mathematical models; Methods; Orthodontics; Patients; Puberty; Regression analysis; Transplants & implants; United States > US; mandible; machine learning; growth and development; artificial intelligence
• ISSN: 2075-4418; 2075-4418
• DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13091553

The aim was to predict the post-pubertal mandibular length and Y axis of growth in males by using various machine learning (ML) techniques. Cephalometric data obtained from 163 males with Class I Angle malocclusion, were used to train various ML algorithms. Analysis of variances (ANOVA) was used to compare the differences between predicted and actual measurements among methods and between time points. All the algorithms revealed an accuracy range from 95.80% to 97.64% while predicting post-pubertal mandibular length. When predicting the Y axis of growth, accuracies ranged from 96.60% to 98.34%. There was no significant interaction between methods and time points used for predicting the mandibular length ( = 0.235) and Y axis of growth ( = 0.549). All tested ML algorithms accurately predicted the post-pubertal mandibular length and Y axis of growth. The best predictors for the mandibular length were mandibular and maxillary lengths, and lower face height, while they were Y axis of growth, lower face height, and mandibular plane angle for the post-pubertal Y axis of growth. No significant difference was found among the accuracies of the techniques, except the least squares method had a significantly larger error than all others in predicting the Y axis of growth.