Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5624/isd.20210077

A fully deep learning model for the automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks  

Kim, Young Hyun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
Lee, Chena (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
Ha, Eun-Gyu (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
Choi, Yoon Jeong (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
Han, Sang-Sun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
Publication Information
Imaging Science in Dentistry / v.51, no.3, 2021 , pp. 299-306 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to propose a fully automatic landmark identification model based on a deep learning algorithm using real clinical data and to verify its accuracy considering inter-examiner variability. Materials and Methods: In total, 950 lateral cephalometric images from Yonsei Dental Hospital were used. Two calibrated examiners manually identified the 13 most important landmarks to set as references. The proposed deep learning model has a 2-step structure-a region of interest machine and a detection machine-each consisting of 8 convolution layers, 5 pooling layers, and 2 fully connected layers. The distance errors of detection between 2 examiners were used as a clinically acceptable range for performance evaluation. Results: The 13 landmarks were automatically detected using the proposed model. Inter-examiner agreement for all landmarks indicated excellent reliability based on the 95% confidence interval. The average clinically acceptable range for all 13 landmarks was 1.24 mm. The mean radial error between the reference values assigned by 1 expert and the proposed model was 1.84 mm, exhibiting a successful detection rate of 36.1%. The A-point, the incisal tip of the maxillary and mandibular incisors, and ANS showed lower mean radial error than the calibrated expert variability. Conclusion: This experiment demonstrated that the proposed deep learning model can perform fully automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks and achieve better results than examiners for some landmarks. It is meaningful to consider between-examiner variability for clinical applicability when evaluating the performance of deep learning methods in cephalometric landmark identification.
Keywords
Anatomic Landmarks; Artificial Intelligence; Dental Digital Radiography; Deep Learning; Neural Network Models;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Wang S, Li H, Li J, Zhang Y, Zou B. Automatic analysis of lateral cephalograms based on multiresolution decision tree regression voting. J Healthc Eng 2018; 2018: 1797502.   DOI
2 Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1931; 1: 45-66.
3 Lindner C, Wang CW, Huang CT, Li CH, Chang SW, Cootes TF. Fully automatic system for accurate localisation and analysis of cephalometric landmarks in lateral cephalograms. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 33581.   DOI
4 Yang J, Ling X, Lu Y, Wei M, Ding G. Cephalometric image analysis and measurement for orthognathic surgery. Med Biol Eng Comput 2001; 39: 279-84.   DOI
5 Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983; 83: 382-90.   DOI
6 Chien PC, Parks ET, Eraso F, Hartsfield JK, Roberts WE, Ofner S. Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 262-73.   DOI
7 Durao AP, Morosolli A, Pittayapat P, Bolstad N, Ferreira AP, Jacobs R. Cephalometric landmark variability among orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists: a comparative study. Imaging Sci Dent 2015; 45: 213-20.   DOI
8 Trpkova B, Major P, Prasad N, Nebbe B. Cephalometric landmarks identification and reproducibility: a meta analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112: 165-70.   DOI
9 Houston WJ, Maher RE, McElroy D, Sherriff M. Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod 1986; 8: 149-51.   DOI
10 Midtgard J, Bjork G, Linder-Aronson S. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks and errors of measurements of cephalometric cranial distances. Angle Orthod 1974; 44: 56-61.
11 Rueda S, Alcaniz M. An approach for the automatic cephalometric landmark detection using mathematical morphology and active appearance models. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2006; 9: 159-66.
12 Parthasarathy S, Nugent ST, Gregson PG, Fay DF. Automatic landmarking of cephalograms. Comput Biomed Res 1989; 22: 248-69.   DOI
13 Tong W, Nugent ST, Jensen GM, Fay DF. An algorithm for locating landmarks on dental X-rays. In: Images of the Twenty-First Century. Proceedings of the Annual International Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; 1989 Nob 9-12; Seattle, WA: IEEE; 1989. p. 552-4 vol.2.
14 Grau V, Alcaniz M, Juan MC, Monserrat C, Knoll C. Automatic localization of cephalometric landmarks. J Biomed Inform 2001; 34: 146-56.   DOI
15 Hutton TJ, Cunningham S, Hammond P. An evaluation of active shape models for the automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Eur J Orthod 2000; 22: 499-508.   DOI
16 Montufar J, Romero M, Scougall-Vilchis RJ. Hybrid approach for automatic cephalometric landmark annotation on conebeam computed tomography volumes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018; 154: 140-50.   DOI
17 Yue W, Yin D, Li C, Wang G, Xu T. Automated 2-D cephalometric analysis on X-ray images by a model-based approach. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2006; 53: 1615-23.   DOI
18 Arik SO, Ibragimov B, Xing L. Fully automated quantitative cephalometry using convolutional neural networks. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2017; 4: 014501.   DOI
19 Innes A, Ciesielski V, Mamutil J, John S. Landmark detection for cephalometric radiology images using pulse coupled neural networks. In: Arabnia H, Mun Y, editors. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ICAI'02); 2002 June 24-27; Las Vegas, Nevada, USA: CSREA; 2002. p.511-517. Vol. 2.
20 Wang CW, Huang CT, Hsieh MC, Li CH, Chang SW, Li WC, et al. Evaluation and comparison of anatomical landmark detection methods for cephalometric X-ray images: a grand challenge. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2015; 34: 1890-900.   DOI
21 Shahidi S, Oshagh M, Gozin F, Salehi P, Danaei SM. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks by a designed software. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20110187.   DOI
22 Wang CW, Huang CT, Lee JH, Li CH, Chang SW, Siao MJ, et al. A benchmark for comparison of dental radiography analysis algorithms. Med Image Anal 2016; 31: 63-76.   DOI
23 Song Y, Qiao X, Iwamoto Y, Chen YW. Automatic cephalometric landmark detection on X-ray images using a deep-learning method. Appl Sci 2020; 10: 2547.   DOI
24 Delamare EL, Liedke GS, Vizzotto MB, da Silveira HL, Ribeiro JL, Silveira HE. Influence of a programme of professional calibration in the variability of landmark identification using cone beam computed tomography-synthesized and conventional radiographic cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39: 414-23.   DOI
25 Lau PY, Cooke MS, Hagg U. Effect of training and experience on cephalometric measurement errors on surgical patients. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1997; 12: 204-13.
26 Gravely JF, Benzies PM. The clinical significance of tracing error in cephalometry. Br J Orthod 1974; 1: 95-101.   DOI
27 Sekiguchi T, Savara BS. Variability of cephalometric landmarks used for face growth studies. Am J Orthod 1972; 61: 603-18.   DOI
28 Levy-Mandel AD, Venetsanopoulos AN, Tsotsos JK. Knowledge-based landmarking of cephalograms. Comput Biomed Res 1986; 19: 282-309.   DOI
29 Cardillo J, Sid-Ahmed MA. An image processing system for locating craniofacial landmarks. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1994; 13: 275-89.   DOI
30 Lee H, Park M, Kim J. Cephalometric landmark detection in dental X-ray images using convolutional neural networks. In: Armato SG III, Petrick NA, editors. ProceedingsMedical Imaging 2017: Computer-Aided Diagnosis; 2017 Feb 11-16; Orlando, Florida, United States: SPIE; 2017. p. 101341W
31 Tng TT, Chan TC, Hagg U, Cooke MS. Validity of cephalometric landmarks. An experimental study on human skulls. Eur J Orthod 1994; 16: 110-20.   DOI
32 Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15: 155-63.   DOI
33 Durao AR, Pittayapat P, Rockenbach MI, Olszewski R, Ng S, Ferreira AP, et al. Validity of 2D lateral cephalometry in orthodontics: a systematic review. Prog Orthod 2013; 14: 31.   DOI