ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
The Accuracy of Algorithms Used by Artificial Intelligence in Cephalometric Points Detection: A Systematic Review.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- Clinical Equivalence of a CNN-Based Automated Soft Tissue Landmark Detection System on 2D Facial Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Populational influence on cephalometric landmark identification: performance of two AI-driven software programs in Brazilian and Korean images.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Selected Indicators Used in Cephalometric Analysis and Their Predictive Value in Defining Sagittal Discrepancy Malocclusions: A Comparative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of artificial intelligence in orthodontics is emerging as a tool for localizing cephalometric points in two-dimensional X-rays. AI systems are being evaluated for their accuracy and efficiency compared to conventional methods performed by professionals. The main objective of this study is to identify the artificial intelligence algorithms that yield the best results for cephalometric landmark localization, along with their learning system. A literature search was conducted across PubMed-MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science. Observational and experimental studies from 2013 to 2023 assessing the detection of at least 13 cephalometric landmarks in two-dimensional radiographs were included. Studies requiring advanced computer engineering knowledge or involving patients with anomalies, syndromes, or orthodontic appliances, were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tools. Of 385 references, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria (1 diagnostic accuracy study and 12 retrospective cohorts). Six were high-risk, and seven were low-risk. Convolutional neural networks (CNN)-based AI algorithms showed point localization accuracy ranging from 64.3 to 97.3%, with a mean error of 1.04 mm ± 0.89 to 3.40 mm ± 1.57, within the clinical range of 2 mm. YOLOv3 demonstrated improvements over its earlier version. CNN have proven to be the most effective AI system for detecting cephalometric points in radiographic images. Although CNN-based algorithms generate results very quickly and reproducibly, they still do not achieve the accuracy of orthodontists.
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.