ArticleHead & face medicine2024
Accuracy and tracing time of cephalometric analyses on a tablet or desktop computer : A prospective study.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 15-Point versus pass/fail grading in orthodontic education: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of dental education · 2025Trial
- Automated measurement of Little's Irregularity Index on intraoral photographs using a convolutional neural network.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Agreement of WebCeph-Based Automated and Expert-Adjusted Cephalometric Analyses with Manual and Dolphin Tracings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An Open-Source, AI-Supported Teaching Tool in Orthodontic Education-Assessment of Acceptance and Effectiveness.Journal of dental education · 2025Article
- Hyoid bone position with bone-borne or tooth-borne surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion: a retrospective cohort study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Changes in patient-reported chief complaints with orthognathic surgery: a prospective cohort study.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis prospective study aimed to evaluate the influence of the computer type (tablet or desktop) on accuracy and tracing time of cephalometric analyses.
methodsDental students used a web-based application specifically developed for this purpose to perform cephalometric analyses on tablet and desktop computers. Landmark locations and timestamps were exported to measure the accuracy, successful detection rate and tracing time. Reference landmarks were established by six experienced orthodontists. Statistical analysis included reliability assessment, descriptive statistics, and linear mixed effect models.
resultsOver a period of 8 semesters a total of 277 cephalometric analyses by 161 students were included. The interrater reliability of the orthodontists establishing the reference coordinates was excellent (ICC > 0.9). For the students, the mean landmark deviation was 2.05 mm and the successful detection rate for the clinically acceptable threshold of 2 mm suggested in the literature was 68.6%, with large variations among landmarks. No effect of the computer type on accuracy and tracing time of the cephalometric analyses could be found.
conclusionThe use of tablet computers for cephalometric analyses can be recommended.
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.