Accuracy of an artificial intelligence-based program for locating the maxillomandibular relationship of scans acquired by using intraoral scanners

Statement of problem An artificial-intelligence (AI) based program can be used to articulate scans in maximum intercuspal position (MIP) or correct occlusal collisions of articulated scans at MIP; however, the accuracy of the AI program determining the MIP relationship is unknown. Purpose The purpose of the present clinical study was to assess the influence of intraoral scanner (IOS) (TRIOS 5 or i700) and program (IOS or AI-based program) on the accuracy of the MIP relationship. Material and methods Casts of a participant mounted on an articulator were digitized (T710). A maxillary and a mandibular scan of the participant were recorded by using 2 IOSs: TRIOS 5 and i700. The scans were duplicated 15 times. Then, each duplicated pair of scans was articulated in MIP using a bilateral occlusal record. Articulated scans were duplicated and allocated into 2 groups based on the automatic occlusal collisions' correction completed by using the corresponding IOS program: IOS-corrected and IOS-noncorrected group. Three subgroups were created based on the AI-based program (Bite Finder) method: AI-articulated, AI-IOS-corrected, and AI-IOS-noncorrected (n=15). In the AI-articulated subgroup, the nonarticulated scans were imported and articulated. In the AI-IOS-corrected subgroup, the articulated scans obtained in the IOS-corrected group were imported, and the occlusal collisions were corrected. In the AI-IOS-corrected subgroup, the articulated scans obtained in the IOS-noncorrected subgroup were imported, and the occlusal collisions were corrected. A total of 36 interlandmark measurements were calculated on each articulated scan (Geomagic Wrap). The distances computed on the reference scan were used as a reference to calculate the discrepancies with each experimental scan. Nonparametric 2-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparison Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner tests were used to analyze trueness. The general linear model procedure was used to analyze precision (α=.05). Results Significant maxillomandibular trueness (P=.003) and precision (P<.001) differences were found among the subgroups. The IOS-corrected and IOS-noncorrected (P<.001) and AI-articulated and IOS-noncorrected subgroups (P=.011) were significantly different from each other. The IOS-corrected and AI-articulated subgroups obtained significantly better maxillomandibular trueness and precision than the IOS-noncorrected subgroups. Conclusions The IOSs tested obtained similar MIP accuracy; however, the program used to articulate or correct occlusal collusions impacted the accuracy of the MIP relationship.