Faculty Publications (HBMCDM)

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://repository.mbru.ac.ae/handle/1/16

Browse

Browsing Faculty Publications (HBMCDM) by Subject "Accuracy"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Publication
    Accuracy and reliability of landmark- based, surface- based and voxel- based 3D cone- beam computed tomography superimposition methods
    (2017) Ghoneima, Ahmed
    Objectives: To evaluate and compare the accuracy and reliability of 3 different methods of three- dimensional cone- beam computed tomography scans (3D CBCTs) superimpositions: landmark- based, surface- based and voxel- based. Materials and Methods: Pre and post orthodontic treatment CBCTs (T1 and T2) of 20 subjects with a mean age of 11 years were obtained. Seven points on the zygomatic arch and supraorbital region were selected to perform landmark- based superimposition. Surface- based and voxel- based superimpositions were performed using the anterior cranial base as a reference. Each superimposition method of T1 and T2 scans was repeated twice to assess the reliability. Accuracy of each technique was tested by superimposing duplicated sets of T1 scans. A total of 11 landmarks on the anterior cranial base, maxilla and mandible were located, and deviations of these landmarks on superimposed data were quantified to assess reliability and accuracy of all superimpositions. Results: There were no significant differences from zero when duplicated sets of T1 scans were superimposed using surface- based and voxel- based methods. Statistical significant differences were detected in several parameters when evaluating the accuracy of the landmark superimposition. Superimposition of T1 and T2 scans for testing the reliability revealed intraclass correlation coefficients greater than 0.90 for all measurements except for ACP- x and PNS- y of landmark- based method as well as ANS- x of voxel- based method. Conclusions: Surface- based and voxel- based superimposition methods using the anterior cranial base as a reference structure were accurate and reliable in detecting changes in landmark positions when superimposing. Landmark- based superimposition method was reliable but less accurate than the other methods.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Comparative evaluation of commercially available AI-based cephalometric tracing programs.
    (2024-10-18) Baig, Nida; Gyasudeen, Kabir Syed; Chaudhry, Jahanzeb; Prasad, Sabarinath
    Objectives: Compare the accuracy and diagnostic concordance of three commercially available AI-based lateral cephalometric tracing software.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Large Language Models in peri-implant disease: How well do they perform?
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-03) Kaklamanos, Eleftherios G
    Statement of problem: Artificial intelligence (AI) has gained significant recent attention and several AI applications, such as the Large Language Models (LLMs) are promising for use in clinical medicine and dentistry. Nevertheless, assessing the performance of LLMs is essential to identify potential inaccuracies or even prevent harmful outcomes. Purpose. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the evidence-based potential of answers provided by 4 LLMs to clinical questions in the field of implant dentistry. Material and methods: A total of 10 open-ended questions pertinent to prevention and treatment of peri-implant disease were posed to 4 distinct LLMs including ChatGPT 4.0, Google Gemini, Google Gemini Advanced, and Microsoft Copilot. The answers were evaluated independently by 2 periodontists against scientific evidence for comprehensiveness, scientific accuracy, clarity, and relevance. The LLMs responses received scores ranging from 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum) points. To assess the intra-evaluator reliability, a re-evaluation of the LLM responses was performed after 2 weeks and Cronbach α and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used (α=.05). Results: The scores assigned by the examiners on the 2 occasions were not statistically different and each LLM received an average score. Google Gemini Advanced ranked higher than the rest of the LLMs, while Google Gemini scored worst. The difference between Google Gemini Advanced and Google Gemini was statistically significantly different (P=.005). Conclusions: Dental professionals need to be cautious when using LLMs to access content related to peri-implant diseases. LLMs cannot currently replace dental professionals and caution should be exercised when used in patient care.