ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2022
Comparison between cephalometric measurements using digital manual and web-based artificial intelligence cephalometric tracing software.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Clinical Reliability of AI-Based Cephalometric Analysis Using WebCeph: A Comparative Agreement Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of W. Arnett's cephalometric analysis measurements performed using artificial intelligence and manual measurements.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- FDA-Approved AI Solutions in Dental Imaging: A Narrative Review of Applications, Evidence, and Outlook.International dental journal · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Cephalometric Analysis: A Comparative Study Between WebCeph and NemoCeph.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- VisionMetric Suite for periocular measurement in ophthalmic plastic surgery: a preliminary single-center validation study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of orthognathic surgery planning with artificial intelligence: a prospective, comparative study.European oral research · 2026Article
- Accuracy of cephalometric landmark identification on artificial intelligence-based software: a comparative study.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment planning of orthodontics: a narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Review
- 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
- Empowering Modern Dentistry: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Patient Care and Clinical Decision Making.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Its Clinical Applications in Orthodontics: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in a Cephalometric Analysis: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Influence of growth structures and fixed appliances on automated cephalometric landmark recognition with a customized convolutional neural network.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Lateral Cephalograms as Valuable Antemortem Tools in Forensic Identification of Individuals during Mass Disasters: An Orthodontic Perspective.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the measurements performed with digital manual (DM) cephalometric analysis and automatic cephalometric analysis obtained from an online artificial intelligence (AI) platform, according to different sagittal skeletal malocclusions.
methodsCephalometric radiographs of 105 randomly selected individuals (mean age: 17.25 ± 1.87 years) were included in this study. Dolphin Imaging software was used for DM cephalometric analysis, and the WebCeph platform was used for AI-based cephalometric analysis. In total, 10 linear and 12 angular measurements were evaluated. The paired t-test, one-way ANOVA test, and intraclass correlation coefficient tests were used to evaluate the differences between the two methods. The level of statistical significance was set at p< 0.05.
resultsExcept for SNB, NPog, U1.SN, U1.NA, L1-APog, I/I, and LLE parameters, all other parameters presented significant differences between the two methods (p< 0.05). While there was no difference (p> 0.05) in both SNA and SNB measurements between the two methods in the Class I malocclusion group, there was a difference between both methods in the Class II malocclusion group. Meanwhile, only the SNA in the Class III malocclusion group was different (p< 0.05). The ANB angle differed significantly in all three malocclusion groups. For both methods, all parameters except CoA and CoGn were found to have good correlation.
conclusionAlthough significant differences were detected in some measurements between the two cephalometric analysis methods, not all differences were clinically significant. The AI-based cephalometric analysis method needs to be developed for more specific malocclusions.
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.