ArticleCureus2024
Digital Cephalometric Analysis: Unveiling the Role and Reliability of Semi-automated OneCeph, Artificial Intelligence-Powered WebCeph Mobile App, and Semi-automated Computer-Aided NemoCeph Software in Orthodontic Practice.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Agreement Between WebCeph and Manual Cephalometric Analysis: Cleft and Non-Cleft Patients Comparison: A Retrospective Method-Comparison Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- 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
- Applications of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment planning of orthodontics: a narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Review
- Evaluation of artificial intelligence-based cephalometric tracing versus semi-automatic and manual tracing.BMC oral health · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Cephalometric analysis is essential in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. With the emergence of digital tools for cephalometric analysis such as OneCeph, WebCeph, and NemoCeph, there is growing interest in their reliability compared to traditional manual tracings. This study aimed to compare the reliability of these digital tools with manual tracings in doing cephalometric analysis. Methodology Cephalometric radiographs from a diverse patient population were analyzed using OneCeph (NXS, Hyderabad, India), WebCeph (AssembleCircle Corp., Republic of Korea), NemoCeph (Nemotec, Madrid, Spain), and manual tracings by experienced orthodontists. Interobserver reliability and agreement with manual tracings were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results The comparison of cephalometric measurements using the four methods - manual, OneCeph, WebCeph, and NemoCeph - revealed significant differences in the Sella-Nasion to Point A angle (SNA) (P = 0.002) and angle of difference between Sella-Nasion to Point A angle and Sella-Nasion to Point B angle (ANB) (P<0.001). Specifically, WebCeph produced significantly higher SNA measurements than manual tracing, while NemoCeph, OneCeph, and WebCeph yielded higher ANB measurements than manual tracing. There were no significant differences in other measurements, including Sella-Nasion to Point B angle (SNB), Nasion to Point A (N to Pt A), Nasion to Point B (N to Pt B), Gonion-Gnathion to Sella-Nasion angle (Go-Gn to SN), Lower Anterior Facial Height (LAFH), Y-axis (growth axis angle), facial axis, the sum of posterior measurements, and various angular and linear distances [1 to NA, 1 to SN, 1 to NB, 1 to Apog, Incisor Mandibular Plane Angle (IMPA), Sella to Upper Lip (S to UL), and Sella to Lower Lip (S to LL)]. The reliability analysis indicated a strong internal consistency with Cronbach's α values of 0.811 for manual vs. NemoCeph, 0.859 for manual vs. OneCeph, and 0.861 for manual vs. WebCeph, and good agreement in the ICC (P<0.001). Conclusion OneCeph, WebCeph, and NemoCeph demonstrate promising reliability for cephalometric analysis. However, the results should be interpreted with caution, considering the limitations of digital tools. Ongoing research and collaboration among developers, researchers, and clinicians are essential to validate these the performance of these tools and improve their clinical applicability.
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.