ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2024
Comparative Evaluation of Digital Cephalometric Tracing Applications on Mobile Devices and Manual Tracing.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A standardized and efficient intensity-based image registration framework for quantitative cranial base superimposition.Biomedical engineering online · 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
- Article
- Evaluation of reliability and reproducibility of artificial intelligence-based, computer-based and traditional manual tracing methods.Dental press journal of 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cephalometric radiography evaluates facial skeleton development and aids in diagnosis and treatment phases (pre and post) in orthodontics. This study aimed to compare digital cephalometric tracing using a smartphone application (App), a tablet-based platform, and manual tracing in 30 orthodontic patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty orthodontic pretreatment, criteria based, lateral cephalometric radiographs were analyzed/grouped for Steiner analysis parameters (5 skeletal, 3 dentals, 1 soft tissue) by 3 tracing methods [manual - group (Gp M), smartphone (Android - OS9) - Gp S, tablet (Apple - IOS13) - Gp T) after mandatory standardization/calibration. Measurements include 5 angular (SNA, SNB, ANB, SNMPA, SNOP), 3 linear U1NA, L1NB, U1L1, and 1 soft tissue (S line) (millimeters and degrees). Inter-examiner rating was determined using Dahlberg's test. After normality distribution testing (Shapiro-Wilk), data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for group differences. Homogeneity of variance was verified using the Levene test. Differences were determined on probability value of (p≤0.05). RESULTS The results showed that Steiner's analysis parameters were similar in all groups with homogenous variances. Highest differences in mean values were found for L1NB, U1L1, and S line measurement, with higher values being observed in Gp S tracings. However, these differences were not statistically significant (p≤0.05). All parameters, irrespective of being measured in either degrees or millimeters, had means comparable to each other. CONCLUSIONS Smartphone and tablet-based applications produced tracings that were comparable and reliable when compared to conventional manual tracings. Standardization of images, processing, printing, and calibration of devices is important to achieve good results.
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.