ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2025
Influence of head positioning errors on the accuracy of fully automated artificial intelligence-based cephalometric software.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Present and Future of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of three fully automated software systems compared to nonautomated cephalometric analysis software tested using cephalograms featuring correct and incorrect head positions. Materials and Methods: The study sample consisted of 40 lateral cephalograms retrieved retrospectively from a larger pool of pretreatment orthodontic records. Cephalograms were recruited and divided into correct head posture group (CHP) and incorrect head posture group (IHP). Cephalometric data were obtained by manual landmarking (Dolphin software), which served as a reference, and by fully automated AI software (WebCeph, Ceph Assistant, and AudaxCeph). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and paired t-tests were used for intragroup comparisons, whereas analysis of variance and post-hoc analysis were used to compare performance among artificial intelligence (AI) based software applications. Results: The tested software exhibited a good level of consistency for angular measurements whereas linear measurements were more error-prone. AudaxCeph demonstrated the most consistent accuracy, achieving excellent agreement (ICC > 0.90) for several skeletal parameters; however, it failed in detecting soft tissue accurately. WebCeph and Ceph Assistant showed greater variability, especially for linear measurements (ICC < 0.50). Positional errors drastically reduced measurement accuracy, with linear parameters such as Go-Me showing the poorest agreement across all software. Conclusions: AI-based cephalometric software demonstrated variable accuracy depending on the cephalometric measurement, and this pattern was exacerbated under conditions involving positional errors in cephalograms. Accordingly, oversight by expert clinicians is still required to minimize marginal error.
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.