ArticleBMC oral health2024
Comparative evaluation of commercially available AI-based cephalometric tracing programs.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Parameter-level comparison of artificial intelligence and manual cephalometric measurements: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence for skeletal classification in orthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis of lateral cephalometric studies.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026Review
- Agreement of WebCeph-Based Automated and Expert-Adjusted Cephalometric Analyses with Manual and Dolphin Tracings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- 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
- Diagnostic accuracy of generative large language artificial intelligence models for the assessment of dental crowding.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of artificial intelligence-based cephalometric tracing versus semi-automatic and manual tracing.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Assessing Diagnostic Accuracy in Cephalometry: A Comparative Study of Manual and Digital Tracing Techniques.Cureus · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCompare the accuracy and diagnostic concordance of three commercially available AI-based lateral cephalometric tracing software. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty-three lateral cephalometric radiographs were analyzed using semi-automatic (Dolphin Imaging Systems LLC) and AI-based software programs (WebCeph™, Cephio, and Ceppro DDH Inc.). Intra- and inter-observer reliability were assessed for human expert measurements, and repeated-measures one-way ANOVA was used to compare the AI and human expert measurements. The diagnostic performance was evaluated using sensitivity and specificity tests.
resultsHuman expert reliability was excellent (ICC > 0.9) for most cephalometric parameters. Compared to human experts, significant differences were observed for all three AI-based cephalometric programs (WebCeph™ - 10 of 11, Cephio - 7 of 11, and Ceppro DDH Inc. - 7 of 11 cephalometric measurements). Variations exceeding two units were noted for most parameters, and differences in defining the sagittal and vertical skeletal patterns, dental, and soft tissue characteristics were observed.
conclusionAll three AI-based tracing programs showed inaccuracies compared to human expert measurements and lacked reliability in measuring key cephalometric parameters. Clinicians should exercise caution when relying solely on AI-based analyses for orthodontic treatment planning and assessment.
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.