Journals / Turkish Journal of Orthodontics / 2021 / Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 1

Evaluation of the Artificial Neural Network and Naive Bayes Models Trained with Vertebra Ratios for Growth and Development Determination

Pages
2–9
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is important to determine the effective ratio and/or measurements that will be useful for differentiation

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the success rates of the artificial neural network models (NNMs) and naive Bayes models (NBMs) trained with various cervical vertebra ratios in cephalometric radiographs for determining growth and development.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Our retrospective study was performed on 360 individuals between the ages of 8 and 17 years, whose cephalometric radiographs were taken.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is important to determine the effective ratio and/or measurements that will be useful for differentiation
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the success rates of the artificial neural network models (NNMs) and naive Bayes models (NBMs) trained with various cervical vertebra ratios in cephalometric radiographs for determining growth and development. Methods: Our retrospective study was performed on 360 individuals between the ages of 8 and 17 years, whose cephalometric radiographs were taken. According to the evaluation of cephalometric radiographs, growth and development periods were divided into 6 vertebral stages. Each stage was considered as a group, each group had 30 girls and 30 boys. Twenty-eight cervical vertebral ratios were obtained by using 10 horizontal and 13 vertical measurements. These 28 vertebral ratios were combined in 4 different combinations, leading to 4 different datasets. Each dataset was split into 2 parts as training and testing. To prevent the overfitting, a 5-cross fold validation technique was also used in the training phase. The experiments were conducted on 2 different train/test ratios as 80%-20% and 70%-30% for both NNMs and NBMs. Results: The highest determination success rate was obtained in NNM 3 (0.95) and the lowest in NBM 4 (0.50). The determination success of NBM 1 and NBM 3 was almost similar (0.60). The success of NNM 2 did not differ much from that of NNM 1 (0.94). The deter- mination success of stage 5 was relatively lower than the others in NNM 1 and NNM 2 (0.83). Conclusion: The NNMs were more successful than the NBMs in our developed models. It is important to determine the effective ratio and/or measurements that will be useful for differentiation

🔖

Cite This Article

KÖK, H., İZGİ, M. S., ACILAR, A. M. (2021). Evaluation of the Artificial Neural Network and Naive Bayes Models Trained with Vertebra Ratios for Growth and Development Determination. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 1, 2–9. https://ajindex.com/articles/403052

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Abdel-Kader HM. The Reliability of Dental X-ray film in assessment of MP3 stages of the pubertal growth spurt. Am J Orthod Dentofa- cial Orthop 1998
  2. [Crossref] 2. Mendes YBE, Bergmann JR, Pellissari MF, Hilgenberg SP, Coelho U. Analysis of skeletal maturation in patients aged 13 to 20 years by means of hand wrist radiographs. Dental Press J Orthod 2010
  3. [Crossref] 3. Kumar V, Hegde SK, Bhat SS. The relationship between dental age, bone age and chronological age in children with short stature. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011
  4. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. An improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of mandibular growth. Angle Orthod. 2002
  5. Franchi L, Baccetti T, De Toffol L, Polimeni A, Cozza P. Phases of the dentition for the assessment of skeletal maturity: A diagnostic per- formance study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008
  6. [Crossref] 6. Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A. Comparasion of cephalometric norms between Japanese and Caucasian adults in antero-pos- terior and vertical dimension. Eur J Orthod. 2007
  7. [Crossref] 7. Panchbhai AS. Dental radiographic indicators, a key to age estima- tion. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011
  8. [Crossref] 8. Greulich WW, Pyle SI. Radiographic atlas of skeletal development of hand and wrist. Stanford University Press. 1959. 9. Lamparski DG. Skeletal age assessment utilizing cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod. 1975
  9. [Crossref] 10. Hassel B, Farman AG. Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervi- cal vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995
  10. [Crossref] 11. Tanner J, Oshman D, Bahhage F, Healy M. Tanner-Whitehouse bone age reference values for North American children. J Pediatr 1997
  11. [Crossref] 12. Tanner JM, Whitehouse RH, Cameron N, Marshall WA, Healy MJR, Goldstein H. Assessment of skeletal maturity and prediction of adult height (TW2 method). London, Saunders. 2001. 13. Demirjian A, Goldstein H. New systems for dental maturity based on seven and four teeth. Ann Hum Biol. 1976
  12. 411–421. 14. Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Major PW. Use of skeletal maturation based on hand-wrist radiographic analysis as a predictor of facial growth: A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2004
  13. Chen L, Liu J, Xu T, Long X, Lin J. Quantitative skeletal evaluation based on cervical vertebral maturation: a longitudinal study of ad- olescents with normal occlusion. Int J Oral Maxi