ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2025
Evaluation of reliability and reproducibility of artificial intelligence-based, computer-based and traditional manual tracing methods.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2025. 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.
- Agreement Between WebCeph and Manual Cephalometric Analysis: Cleft and Non-Cleft Patients Comparison: A Retrospective Method-Comparison Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Reliability of Automated Cephalometric Analysis: A Comparative Assessment of Stratification Strategies Based on Chronological Age Versus Dentition Stage.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTechnological developments affect every aspect of life and science, including cephalometric evaluation methods in orthodontics. Artificial-intelligence-supported mobile Internet devices provide doctors the convenience of performing necessary analyses for patients anytime and anywhere.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the lateral cephalometric measurement methods of the Artificial Intelligence Tracking Method (AITM, WebCeph), Computer-Based Tracking Method (CBTM, NemoCeph), and Manual Tracking Method (MTM), to evaluate the reliability of medical technological approaches, compared to traditional methods.
methodsTwo hundred fifty lateral cephalometric radiographs were evaluated using three different methods: WebCeph, NemoCeph, and manual tracing. For this purpose, ten angular (SNA, SNB, ANB, Go-Gn/SN, Occlusal Plane/SN, U1/SN, U1/NA, L1/Mandibular Plane, L1/NB, and Interincisal angle [U1/L1]) and five linear (U1/NA, L1/NB, Wits Appraisal, Ls/E Plane, and Li/E Plane) parameters were measured, and the data were statistically analyzed.
resultsThere was excellent reliability between the three methods in measurements of SNA, SNB, L1/NB Angle, L1/NB mm, ANB, Wits Appraisal, Ls/E Plane, Li/E Plane, Go-Gn/SN, and Occlusal Plane/SN (p<0.001 and ICC range 0.915 to 0.979). Regarding the agreement between the two measurements, there were statistically significant perfect agreements in all other parameters, except for two moderate ones. Statistically significant differences were found in almost all measured parameters between the tracing methods.
conclusionThere were significant differences in the majority of the measurement methods. Regarding reproducibility, the Interincisal Angle values showed low consistency with the AITM method, and the U1/SN values showed low consistency with both the CBTM and AITM methods.
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.