ArticleJournal of orthodontic science2021
Reliability of mobile application-based cephalometric analysis for chair side evaluation of orthodontic patient in clinical practice.
Article in Journal of orthodontic science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilization and familiarity of orthodontic mobile applications among orthodontists and trainees: a cross‑sectional survey with implications for Low‑ and Middle‑Income Countries (LMICs).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Pediatric validation of an AI-assisted smartphone application (WebCeph) for cephalometric analysis: reliability, reproducibility and time-efficiency assessment.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Supported and App-Aided Cephalometric Analysis: Which One Can We Trust?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Accuracy and Reproducibility of Semidigital Versus Fully Digital Cephalometric Tracings Using a New Computer Program Versus Conventional Methods (Gold Standards): A Preliminary Study.BioMed research international · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Digital Cephalometric Tracing Applications on Mobile Devices and Manual Tracing.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of Mobile Application-Based Software for chair side cephalometric analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodPretreatment lateral cephalograms of 20 patients (10 males and 10 females) were selected randomly and were traced manually and also using Application-based software (One Ceph). 20 angular and three linear parameters were measured both manually and with the software in all the patients. Inter and intra-operator reliability of one ceph was evaluated and the measured parameters were statistically compared with the manual method (Gold Standard).
resultThe accuracy of angular and linear values was compared for all 23 parameters and our results showed no significant difference in the two methods used for most of the measurements. Three of the measurements [Angle of convexity (N-A; A-Pog); ANB angle; Upper Incisor to NA (Angular)] did show a statistically significant difference though these were clinically irrelevant.
conclusionApplication-based cephalometric analysis can be an effective clinical diagnostic tool for chair-side cephalometric evaluation of orthodontic patient.
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.