ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2025
Assessment of the quality of different commercial providers using artificial intelligence for automated cephalometric analysis compared to human orthodontic experts.
Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- AI in orthodontic treatment planning: a systematic review comparing learning approaches.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Parameter-level comparison of artificial intelligence and manual cephalometric measurements: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Agreement Between WebCeph and Manual Cephalometric Analysis: Cleft and Non-Cleft Patients Comparison: A Retrospective Method-Comparison Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Methods in Cephalometric Image Analysis-A Systematic Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- FDA-Approved AI Solutions in Dental Imaging: A Narrative Review of Applications, Evidence, and Outlook.International dental journal · 2026Review
- Automated landmark detection on lateral photographs using artificial intelligence: diagnostic accuracy compared to expert annotations.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Article
- Evaluation of orthognathic surgery planning with artificial intelligence: a prospective, comparative study.European oral research · 2026Article
- An Open-Source, AI-Supported Teaching Tool in Orthodontic Education-Assessment of Acceptance and Effectiveness.Journal of dental education · 2025Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment planning of orthodontics: a narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Review
- Article
- Review
- 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
- Comparative evaluation of commercially available AI-based cephalometric tracing programs.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontics: Critical Review.Journal of dental research · 2024Review
- Accuracy and tracing time of cephalometric analyses on a tablet or desktop computer : A prospective study.Head & face 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this investigation was to evaluate the accuracy of various skeletal and dental cephalometric parameters as produced by different commercial providers that make use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted automated cephalometric analysis and to compare their quality to a gold standard established by orthodontic experts.
methodsTwelve experienced orthodontic examiners pinpointed 15 radiographic landmarks on a total of 50 cephalometric X‑rays. The landmarks were used to generate 9 parameters for orthodontic treatment planning. The "humans' gold standard" was defined by calculating the median value of all 12 human assessments for each parameter, which in turn served as reference values for comparisons with results given by four different commercial providers of automated cephalometric analyses (DentaliQ.ortho [CellmatiQ GmbH, Hamburg, Germany], WebCeph [AssembleCircle Corp, Seongnam-si, Korea], AudaxCeph [Audax d.o.o., Ljubljana, Slovenia], CephX [Orca Dental AI, Herzliya, Israel]). Repeated measures analysis of variances (ANOVAs) were calculated and Bland-Altman plots were generated for comparisons.
resultsThe results of the repeated measures ANOVAs indicated significant differences between the commercial providers' predictions and the humans' gold standard for all nine investigated parameters. However, the pairwise comparisons also demonstrate that there were major differences among the four commercial providers. While there were no significant mean differences between the values of DentaliQ.ortho and the humans' gold standard, the predictions of AudaxCeph showed significant deviations in seven out of nine parameters. Also, the Bland-Altman plots demonstrate that a reduced precision of AI predictions must be expected especially for values attributed to the inclination of the incisors.
conclusionFully automated cephalometric analyses are promising in terms of timesaving and avoidance of individual human errors. At present, however, they should only be used under supervision of experienced clinicians.
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.