Seedlabs
Source research

Artificial intelligence driven dental monitoring and surveillance of malocclusion treatment in orthodontic patients

Agung Sosiawan, Jesslyn Jordana, Devin Elysia Dhywinanda, Jennifer Fiona Salim, Nastiti Faradilla Ramadhani, Rofi Nurdiansyah et al. · 2022 · 10 citationsRead the paper

Background: Orthodontic treatment success does not only depend on proper diagnosis and treatment, but also on patient’s compliance. Patient’s progress and compliance can be monitored through in-office visits at certain time intervals. However, this interval is not necessarily ideal for every patient. Purpose: To overcome this limitation, Dental Monitoring® (DM) is introduced as artificial intelligence (AI) driven remote monitoring, which analyzes tooth movement, oral hygiene, and the condition of orthodontic appliances. This study aimed to describe the clinical application of DM based on the number of in-office visits, duration of treatment, number of refinements, stability of retention phase, tooth movement, patient's oral hygiene, and patient’s subjective perception regarding DM. Review: Based on five articles included, the use of DM during orthodontic treatment had several advantages including the increase of patient’s compliance on maintaining oral hygiene and significant reduction of in-office visits, thus increasing the treatment’s effectiveness and comfort for patients. Duration of treatment and number of refinements that do not differ significantly between DM and non-DM users are considered as DM’s other advantages as it could reduce in-office visits without compromising treatment’s effectiveness. Orthodontic relapse can also be identified hence severe relapse can be prevented. Conclusion: The clinical application of DM can reduce in-office visits, improve oral hygiene and retention stability. However, the use of DM must be carefully considered to prevent decline in doctor-patient relationships

What the full text shows

Deployed in practice
  • Significant reduction in the number of in-office visits compared to control groups. — 33.1% reduction (7.12 vs 10.64 visits) in one study; 7.56 vs 9.82 visits in another (Orthodontic patients using Dental Monitoring (DM))
  • Reduction in the incidence of removable retainer misfit during the retention phase. — p = 0.027 (Post-treatment retention phase)
  • No significant difference in treatment duration or number of refinements compared to control groups. — Duration: 14.58 vs 13.91 months; Refinements: 1.00 vs 0.79 (Comparison between DM users and non-DM users)
  • Improved oral hygiene with zero caries detected in the DM group compared to the control group. — 0 vs 5 carious lesion onsets (CLOs) (Orthodontic patients)
  • Patient dissatisfaction and difficulty with the scanning process. — 12% dissatisfied; 27 patients reported scanning difficulty (DM users)
Setup
Review of 5 articles; specific study samples included comparisons between DM users and control groups over periods such as 7 months.
How
A literature review of five articles evaluating the clinical application of the Dental Monitoring (DM) AI-driven remote monitoring system. The review analyzed parameters including visit frequency, treatment duration, oral hygiene, and patient perception.
Limitations
Potential Hawthorne effect (behavior change due to awareness of being observed) · Patient proficiency in technology affects ease of use · Physical constraints like mouth opening ability and muscle tonicity affect image quality · Risk of decline in doctor-patient relationships

Summarized by Gemma 4 from the open-access full text · 8 Oct 2026. Read it