ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2020
Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed.
- Craniofacial Features in Children with Sleep-Disordered Breathing: A Comparative Study.Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) · 2026Article
- Agreement of WebCeph-Based Automated and Expert-Adjusted Cephalometric Analyses with Manual and Dolphin Tracings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of artificial intelligence-based cephalometric analysis compared to the manual method.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of cephalometric landmarks using artificial intelligence compared to the manual method.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- Reliability of AI-driven cephalometric analysis on CBCT: comparison with manual 2D cephalometry.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- FDA-Approved AI Solutions in Dental Imaging: A Narrative Review of Applications, Evidence, and Outlook.International dental journal · 2026Review
- Assessment of AI-based cephalometric landmark recognition on lateral cephalometric radiographs.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluating a cost-effective, web-based AI platform for lateral cephalometric analysis: a comparative in-silico study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment planning of orthodontics: a narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Review
- Evaluation of artificial intelligence-based cephalometric tracing versus semi-automatic and manual tracing.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Influence of head positioning errors on the accuracy of fully automated artificial intelligence-based cephalometric software.The Angle orthodontist · 2025Article
- Assessment of the quality of different commercial providers using artificial intelligence for automated cephalometric analysis compared to human orthodontic experts.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2025Article
- Accuracy of automated analysis in cephalometry.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- Review
- Comparative accuracy of artificial intelligence-based AudaxCeph software, Dolphin software, and the manual technique for orthodontic landmark identification and tracing of lateral cephalograms.Imaging science in dentistry · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Supported and App-Aided Cephalometric Analysis: Which One Can We Trust?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of reliability and reproducibility of artificial intelligence-based, computer-based and traditional manual tracing methods.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- Comparison of AI-assisted cephalometric analysis and orthodontist-performed digital tracing analysis.Progress in orthodontics · 2024Article
- Comparison of Three Commercially Available, AI-Driven Cephalometric Analysis Tools in Orthodontics.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Reliability of the AI-Assisted Assessment of the Proximity of the Root Apices to Mandibular Canal.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the accuracy of cephalometric analyses made with fully automated tracings, computerized tracing, and app-aided tracings with equivalent hand-traced measurements, and to evaluate the tracing time for each cephalometric analysis method.
methodsPre-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of 40 patients were randomly selected. Eight angular and 4 linear parameters were measured by 1 operator using 3 methods: computerized tracing with software Dolphin Imaging 13.01(Dolphin Imaging and Management Solutions, Chatsworth, Calif, USA), app-aided tracing using the CephNinja 3.51 app (Cyncronus LLC, WA, USA), and web-based fully automated tracing with CephX (ORCA Dental AI, Las Vegas, NV). Correction of CephX landmarks was also made. Manual tracings were performed by 3 operators. Remeasurement of 15 radiographs was carried out to determine the intra-examiner and inter-examiner (manual tracings) correlation coefficient (ICC). Inter-group comparisons were made with one-way analysis of variance. The Tukey test was used for post hoc testing.
resultsOverall, greater variability was found with CephX compared with the other methods. Differences in GoGn-SN (°), I-NA (°), I-NB (°), I-NA (mm), and I-NB (mm) were statistically (p<0.05) and clinically significant using CephX, whereas CephNinja and Dolphin were comparable to manual tracings. Correction of CephX landmarks gave similar results to CephNinja and Dolphin. All the ICCs exceeded 0.85, except for I-NA (°), I-NB (°), and I-NB (mm), which were traced with CephX. The shortest analyzing time was obtained with CephX.
conclusionFully automatic analysis with CephX needs to be more reliable. However, CephX analysis with manual correction is promising for use in clinical practice because it is comparable to CephNinja and Dolphin, and the analyzing time is significantly shorter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.