ArticleScientific reports2024
Accuracy of cephalometric landmark and cephalometric analysis from lateral facial photograph by using CNN-based algorithm.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial-Intelligence-Based Cephalometric Landmark Detection in Lateral Cephalograms.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical Equivalence of a CNN-Based Automated Soft Tissue Landmark Detection System on 2D Facial Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ultrasonographic and cephalometric assessment of tongue thickness across angle's classes of malocclusion in skeletal class I patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cephalometric analysis is the primary diagnosis method in orthodontics. In our previous study, the algorithm was developed to estimate cephalometric landmarks from lateral facial photographs of patients with normal occlusion. This study evaluates the estimation accuracy by the algorithm trained on a dataset of 2320 patients with added malocclusion patients and the analysis values. The landmarks were estimated from the input of lateral facial photographs as training data using trained CNN-based algorithms. The success detection rate (SDR) was calculated based on the mean radial error (MRE) of the distance between the estimated and actual coordinates. Furthermore, the estimated landmarks were used to measure angles and distances as a cephalometric analysis. In the skeletal Class II malocclusion, MRE was 0.42 ± 0.15 mm, and in the skeletal Class III malocclusion, MRE was 0.46 ± 0.16 mm. We conducted a cephalometric analysis using the estimated landmarks and examined the differences with actual data. In both groups, no significant differences were observed for any of the data. Our new algorithm for estimating the landmarks from lateral facial photographs of malocclusion patients resulted in an error of less than 0.5 mm; the error in cephalometric analysis was less than 0.5°. Therefore, the algorithm can be clinically valuable.
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.