ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2023
Reproducibility of linear and angular cephalometric measurements obtained by an artificial-intelligence assisted software (WebCeph) in comparison with digital software (AutoCEPH) and manual tracing method.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 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
- Evaluation of cephalometric landmarks using artificial intelligence compared to the manual method.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- Reliability of dental-dedicated magnetic resonance imaging for 2-dimensional orthodontic diagnosis: A pilot study of landmark identification.Imaging science in dentistry · 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
- Accuracy of cephalometric landmark identification on artificial intelligence-based software: a comparative study.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 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
- Influence of head positioning errors on the accuracy of fully automated artificial intelligence-based cephalometric software.The Angle orthodontist · 2025Article
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Supported and App-Aided Cephalometric Analysis: Which One Can We Trust?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of Three Commercially Available, AI-Driven Cephalometric Analysis Tools in Orthodontics.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Digital versus Manual Tracing in Cephalometric Analysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- A comparative evaluation of concordance and speed between smartphone app-based and artificial intelligence web-based cephalometric tracing software with the manual tracing method: A cross-sectional study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Assessing the reliability of ChatGPT: a content analysis of self-generated and self-answered questions on clear aligners, TADs and digital imaging.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2023Article
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
introductionIt has been suggested that human errors during manual tracing of linear/angular cephalometric parameters can be eliminated by using computer-aided analysis. The landmarks, however, are located manually and the computer system completes the analysis. With the advent of Artificial Intelligence in the field of Dentistry, automatic location of the landmarks has become a promising tool in digital Orthodontics.
methodsFifty pretreatment lateral cephalograms obtained from the Orthodontic department of SRM dental college (India) were used. Analysis were done by the same investigator using the following methods: WebCeph™, AutoCEPH© for Windows or manual tracing. Landmark identification was carried out automatically by Artificial Intelligence in WebCeph™ and with a mouse driven cursor in AutoCEPH©, and manually using acetate sheet and 0.3-mm pencil, ruler and a protractor. The mean differences of the cephalometric parameters obtained between the three methods were calculated using ANOVA with statistical significance set at p<0.05. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine both reproducibility and agreement between linear and angular measurements obtained from the three methods and intrarater reliability of repeated measurements. ICC value of >0.75 indicated good agreement.
resultsIntraclass correlation coefficient between the three groups was >0.830, showing good level of agreement, and the value within each group was >0.950, indicating high intrarater reliability.
conclusionArtificial Intelligence assisted software showed good agreement with AutoCEPH© and manual tracing for all the cephalometric measurements.
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.