The future of maxillofacial prosthodontics in North America: The role of advanced digital technology and artificial intelligence – A discussion document
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Maxillofacial prosthodontists were advanced digital technology (ADT) adopters early in the new Millennium. The past two decades saw a range of digital enablers emerge including digital imaging (internal and surface), digital surgical planning, digital functional assessment, subtractive and additive manufacturing, navigation, and robotics among others. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the latest ADT arrival that will be a challenging disruptive technology. ADT has served as a profound change agent in maxillofacial prosthodontics. The intent was to explore the process and level of ADT engagement in maxillofacial prosthodontics. PURPOSE: The purpose was twofold. Firstly, to explore maxillofacial prosthodontic engagement of ADT. Secondly, to develop a discussion document to assist the American Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics (AAMP) with establishing a collective awareness and considered opinion on the future of maxillofacial prosthodontics in the digital era. MATERIAL AND METHODS: AAMP member interest in ADT was assessed through analysis of AAMP annual congress programs and publications in the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (JPD). The history of the maxillofacial prosthodontic journey to the digital era was undertaken with a selective literature review. The perceptions maxillofacial prosthodontists hold on ADT engagement was assessed through a survey of AAMP members. Developing an understanding of the influence AI was conducted with a review of pertinent literature. RESULTS: From 2011-2020, an annual mean of 38% of papers published in the JPD involved clinical use of ADT. From 2017-2019, 44% of invited presentations at AAMP annual congresses included clinical use of ADT. The journey to the digital era distinguished three periods with formative and consolidation periods influencing the innovation digital era. The AAMP member survey had a 59% response rate and studied 10 domains through 31 questions. Of the respondents, 89% thought ADT important to the future of maxillofacial prosthodontics. CONCLUSIONS: The discussion document will assist the AAMP in developing a collective consciousness and considered opinion on ADT in the future of maxillofacial prosthodontics. Members of the AAMP have a developed interest in clinical applications of ADT. A great challenge is that no formal education, training, or clinical competency requirements for ADT could be identified. Clinical competency requirements are important to prepare maxillofacial prosthodontics for the inevitability of a digital era future. The discussion document poses the fundamental question of whether maxillofacial prosthodontists will remain as passive end users of ADT and AI or will they become engaged knowledge workers that have determined clinical competency in ADT and AI in patient care. Without this knowledge worker role, maxillofacial prosthodontists may experience difficulty being part of the inevitable ADT-AI driven future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".