The purpose of this study was to develop a diagnostic tool to automatically detect temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJOA) from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images with artificial intelligence. CBCT images of patients diagnosed with temporomandibular disorder were included for image preparation. Single-shot detection, an object detection model, was trained with 3,514 sagittal CBCT images of the temporomandibular joint that showed signs of osseous changes in the mandibular condyle. The region of interest (condylar head) was defined and classified into 2 categories—indeterminate for TMJOA and TMJOA—according to image analysis criteria for the diagnosis of temporomandibular disorder. The model was tested with 2 sets of 300 images in total. The average accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score over the 2 test sets were 0.86, 0.85, 0.84, and 0.84, respectively. Automated detection of TMJOA from sagittal CBCT images is possible by using a deep neural networks model. It may be used to support clinicians with diagnosis and decision making for treatments of TMJOA.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been applied to diagnose temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). However, studies have used different patient selection criteria, disease subtypes, input data, and outcome measures. Resultantly, the performance of the AI models varies. Objective: This study aimed to systematically summarize the current literature on the application of AI technologies for diagnosis of different TMD subtypes, evaluate the quality of these studies, and assess the diagnostic accuracy of existing AI models. Materials and methods: The study protocol was carried out based on the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA). The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched to find relevant articles from database inception to June 2022. Studies that used AI algorithms to diagnose at least one subtype of TMD and those that assessed the performance of AI algorithms were included. We excluded studies on orofacial pain that were not directly related to the TMD, such as studies on atypical facial pain and neuropathic pain, editorials, book chapters, and excerpts without detailed empirical data. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to provide certainty of evidence. Results: A total of 17 articles for automated diagnosis of masticatory muscle disorders, TMJ osteoarthrosis, internal derangement, and disc perforation were included; they were retrospective studies, case-control studies, cohort studies, and a pilot study. Seven studies were subjected to a meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy. According to the GRADE, the certainty of evidence was very low. The performance of the AI models had accuracy and specificity ranging from 84% to 99.9% and 73% to 100%, respectively. The pooled accuracy was 0.91 (95% CI 0.76–0.99), I² = 97% (95% CI 0.96–0.98), p < 0.001. Conclusions: Various AI algorithms developed for diagnosing TMDs may provide additional clinical expertise to increase diagnostic accuracy. However, it should be noted that a high risk of bias was present in the included studies. Also, certainty of evidence was very low. Future research of higher quality is strongly recommended.

This study aimed to use artificial intelligence to determine whether biological and psychosocial factors, such as stress, socioeconomic status, and working conditions, were major risk factors for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). Data were retrieved from the fourth Korea National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (2009), with information concerning 4744 participants’ TMDs, demographic factors, socioeconomic status, working conditions, and health-related determinants. Based on variable importance observed from the random forest, the top 20 determinants of self-reported TMDs were body mass index (BMI), household income (monthly), sleep (daily), obesity (subjective), health (subjective), working conditions (control, hygiene, respect, risks, and workload), occupation, education, region (metropolitan), residence type (apartment), stress, smoking status, marital status, and sex. The top 20 determinants of temporomandibular disorders determined via a doctor’s diagnosis were BMI, age, household income (monthly), sleep (daily), obesity (subjective), working conditions (control, hygiene, risks, and workload), household income (subjective), subjective health, education, smoking status, residence type (apartment), region (metropolitan), sex, marital status, and allergic rhinitis. This study supports the hypothesis, highlighting the importance of obesity, general health, stress, socioeconomic status, and working conditions in the management of TMDs.