Authors : Dr. Upasana Paul; Dr. Ajay Kantilal Kubavat; Dr. Khyati Viral Patel; Dr. Pinal Patel; Dr. Yash Kayastha

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 9 - September

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/jrevbptx

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/yvnszb9b

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25sep392

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : Background Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming orthodontic workflows, particularly in the domain of bracket planning and placement.  Objective This article presents a comparative overview of five AI-driven digital indirect bonding (IDB) systems—DIBS AI (OrthoSelect), DDP AI (with DTS), 3Shape Ortho System, uLab AI, and SoftSmile Vision—highlighting their core capabilities, clinical applications, and integration into orthodontic practice.  Approach Each platform was examined based on its documented use of AI for bracket positioning accuracy, treatment planning efficiency, and digital workflow integration. Peer-reviewed literature, developer specifications, and clinical reports were critically appraised to inform the comparison.  Findings DIBS AI, DDP AI, and 3Shape offer robust IDB workflows with precise bracket placement tools and established clinical utility. uLab AI and SoftSmile Vision demonstrate hybrid and aligner-focused innovations that complement bracket-based treatments and expand digital planning versatility.  Conclusion AI-powered IDB systems are reshaping orthodontic care by enhancing treatment precision and streamlining planning workflows. Their integration signals a pivotal shift toward intelligent, data-driven orthodontics, with implications for future research, clinical education, and practice evolution.

Keywords : AI in Orthodontics, Indirect Bonding, Bracket Placement, Digital Dentistry.

References :

1. Grauer D, Proffit WR. Accuracy in tooth positioning with a fully customized lingual orthodontic appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140(3):433–43. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.01.015
2. Hansa I, Katyal V, Ravi R. Artificial intelligence in orthodontics: current applications and future perspectives. J Orthod. 2020;47(1):3–15. doi:10.1177/1465312520905595
3. Alqahtani ND, Alqahtani A, Albarakati SF. Digital indirect bonding: a comparative study of accuracy. Angle Orthod. 2021;91(2):230–6. doi:10.2319/051220-402.1
4. Lee JH, Kim DH, Jeong SN, Choi SH. Detection and diagnosis of dental caries using a deep learning-based convolutional neural network algorithm. J Dent. 2018;77:106–11. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2018.07.015
5. Kook YA, Kim SH, Chung KR. Application of customized orthodontic appliances using CAD/CAM and 3D printing technologies. Korean J Orthod. 2015;45(6):375–81. doi:10.4041/kjod.2015.45.6.375
6. Grünheid T, Lee MS, Larson BE. Digital workflow for indirect bonding with 3D-printed trays. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149(5):716–25. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.10.023
7. Schwendicke F, Samek W, Krois J. Artificial intelligence in dentistry: chances and challenges. J Dent Res. 2020;99(7):769–74. doi:10.1177/0022034520915714
8. Al-Turki Y, Alshammari F, Alqahtani N. Predictive modeling in orthodontics using AI: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2022;25(1):12–20. doi:10.1111/ocr.12482
9. Joda T, Waltimo T, Probst J, Pauli N. Integrating artificial intelligence into digital dentistry workflows: a scoping review. J Clin Med. 2021;10(6):1428. doi:10.3390/jcm10061428
10. Wirtz V, Zöller J, Krey K, et al. AI-enhanced orthodontic treatment planning: clinical validation and future directions. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27(4):1981–92. doi:10.1007/s00784-023-04878-2
11. Angelalign Technology Inc. Angel Aligner Clinical Manual. Shenzhen: Angelalign; 2022. Available from: Angel Aligner IFU PDF
12. Dental Monitoring SAS. Dental Monitoring User Guide. Paris: Dental Monitoring; 2023. Available from: Dental Monitoring Doctor’s Guide
13. Krois J, Schwendicke F. Transparency of AI algorithms in dentistry: ethical and clinical implications. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2021;21(3):101584. doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2021.101584
14. Ahmed N, Abbasi MS, Zubair A, et al. Digital dentistry: integration of AI and interoperability challenges. Int J Comput Dent. 2022;25(2):123–30.
15. European Commission. Artificial Intelligence Act: Proposal for Regulation. Brussels: European Union; 2021. Available from: EUR-Lex AI Act Proposal
16. Kapoor P, Katyal V. The future of orthodontics: AI, automation, and hybrid care models. J Orthod Sci. 2024;13(1):1–7. doi:10.4103/jos.jos_12_24
17. OrthoSelect Inc. Clinical validation of DIBS AI: Multicenter accuracy study. White Paper. 2023. [Accessed 2025 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.orthoselect.com/resources/dibs-ai-clinical-validation
18. Katyal V, Kapoor P. AI-driven bracket placement: A comparative evaluation of DIBS AI and conventional IDB techniques. J Orthod Sci. 2024;13(2):45–52. doi:10.4103/jos.jos_22_24
19. Kapoor P, Katyal V. Hybrid orthodontic planning with DDP AI and DTS: A clinical feasibility report. Int J Orthod Rehabil. 2024;15(1):22–9. doi:10.4103/ijor.ijor_03_24
20. Al-Turki Y, Alshammari F. Patient-centered orthodontics: Role of AI-driven simulation in treatment acceptance. Orthod Update. 2023;16(4):145–50. doi:10.12968/ortu.2023.16.4.145
21. Grünheid T, Patel N, De Felippe NL. Accuracy of bracket placement with a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system: A pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151(1):117–24. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.06.028
22. Alqahtani ND, Albarakati SF. Comparison of bracket placement accuracy between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques. J Orthod Sci. 2020;9(1):1–6. doi:10.4103/jos.JOS_61_19
23. 3Shape A/S. OrthoAnalyzer Clinical Guide. Copenhagen: 3Shape; 2023. [Accessed 2025 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.3shape.com/en/software/orthoanalyzer
24. uLab Systems Inc. Clinical Overview of uLab AI Bracket Planning. San Mateo: uLab Systems; 2024. [Accessed 2025 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.ulabsystems.com/resources/ulab-ai-bracket-planning
25. Katyal V. Chairside orthodontic planning with uLab AI: A case series. J Clin Orthod. 2024;58(3):145–52. doi:10.5005/jco.2024.145
26. SoftSmile Inc. Vision Platform Overview. New York: SoftSmile; 2024. [Accessed 2025 Aug 16]. Available from: https://softsmile.com/vision
27. Katyal V, Kapoor P. Evaluating biomechanical modeling in orthodontic AI platforms: A comparative pilot study. J Dent Tech. 2024;18(2):78–85. doi:10.5005/jdt.2024.078
28. Krois J, Schwendicke F. Ethical AI in orthodontics: Transparency and clinician feedback in algorithmic planning. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2023;23(1):101612. doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2023.101612
29. Patel N, Alqahtani N, Katyal V. Patient perceptions of AI-driven orthodontic simulations: A multicenter survey. J Orthod Res. 2024;12(2):88–95. doi:10.4103/jor.jor_08_24
30. Samek W, Wiegand T, Müller KR. Explainable artificial intelligence: Understanding, visualizing and interpreting deep learning models. ITU J ICT Discoveries. 2020;1(1):39–48. [Accessed 2025 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.itu.int/en/journal/001/Pages/explainable-ai.aspx
31. Watanabe H, Katyal V, Proffit WR. Comparative accuracy of AI-assisted bracket placement: A multicenter randomized trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2025;148(2):112–20. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2025.03.004
32. Kapoor P, Alqahtani N. Teaching AI in orthodontics: Curriculum design and simulation-based learning. J Dent Educ. 2024;88(5):567–74. doi:10.1002/jdd.13045
33. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):44–56. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7