Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39428414›Full record

ArticleProgress in orthodontics2024

Comparison of AI-assisted cephalometric analysis and orthodontist-performed digital tracing analysis.

Sabahattin Bor, Saadet Çınarsoy Ciğerim, Seda Kotan

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Progress in orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sabahattin BorFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, İnönü University, Malatya, Turkey. venaroshan@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5463-0057
Saadet Çınarsoy CiğerimFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, Van, Turkey.
Seda KotanFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, Van, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare and evaluate three AI-assisted cephalometric analysis platforms-CephX, WeDoCeph, and WebCeph-with the traditional digital tracing method using NemoCeph software. MATERIAL AND

methodA total of 1500 lateral cephalometric films that met the inclusion criteria were classified as Class I, Class II, and Class III. Subsequently, 40 patients were randomly selected from each class. These selected films were uploaded to 3 AI-assisted cephalometric analysis platforms and analyzed without any manual intervention. The same films were also analyzed by an orthodontist using the NemoCeph program.

resultsThe results revealed significant differences in key angular measurements (ANB, FMA, IMPA, and NLA) across Class I, II, and III patients when comparing the four cephalometric analysis methods (WebCeph, WeDoCeph, CephX, and NemoCeph). Notably, ANB (p < 0.05), FMA (p < 0.001), IMPA (p < 0.001), and NLA (p < 0.001) varied significantly. Linear measurements also differed, with significant differences in U1-NA (p = 0.002) and Co-A (p = 0.002) in certain classes. Repeated measurement analysis revealed variation in SNA (p = 0.011) and FMA (p = 0.030), particularly in the Class II NemoCeph group, suggesting method-dependent variability.

conclusionAI-assisted cephalometric analysis platforms such as WebCeph, WeDoCeph, and CephX give rise to notable variation in accuracy and reliability compared to traditional manual digital tracing, specifically in terms of angular and linear measurements. These results emphasize the importance of meticulous selection and assessment of analysis methods in orthodontic diagnostics and treatment planning.

Indexed as

CephalometryImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMalocclusion, Angle Class IIAdolescentArtificial IntelligenceFemaleHumansMalocclusion, Angle Class IMalocclusion, Angle Class IIIMandibleMaxillaOrthodontistsSoftware2D lateral filmsAI-assisted cephalometric analysisAngular and linear measurementsDiagnostic accuracy

Identifiers

PMID39428414
PMCPMC11491421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.