ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluating a cost-effective, web-based AI platform for lateral cephalometric analysis: a comparative in-silico study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundDespite the current popularity of artificial intelligence (AI)- assisted cephalometric analysis, its cost precludes its widespread use in low-income countries. Free alternatives are available but mostly lack rigorous validation. Thus, this study aimed to assess the precision of AI-assisted tracing using a freely available web-based platform (WebCeph) (Artificial Intelligence Orthodontic & Orthognathic Cloud Platform, South Korea) by comparing it with the gold standard (manual tracing on OnyxCeph software) (Image Instruments, Chemnitz, Germany). It was also compared with commercially available AI-assisted tracing software (Carestream) (Carestream Dental LLC, Atlanta, GA, USA). MATERIALS AND
methodsLateral cephalometric radiographs of 57 randomly selected patients were included in this study. The radiographs were obtained from the archives of the Radiology unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University. Three lateral cephalometric analysis methods were used. OnyxCeph3™ software was considered the gold standard (Control group), the web-based, WebCeph™ platform, was used as an online AI-based cephalometric analysis platform and set as test group 1, and the desktop-based, Carestream imaging software V8, was used for AI cephalometric analysis and set as test group 2. Skeletal and dental measurements of Steiner and Tweed analyses that were generated using the three methods were compared.
resultsStatistically significant differences were detected between the three methods in 11 out of the 18 cephalometric measurements. Notably, in Steiner analysis, the Max1-NA angle was significantly larger in WebCeph than Onyxceph and Carestream by 2.38° and 3.41°, respectively. The Mand1-NB angle was significantly larger in Onyxceph than Carestream and WebCeph by 3.07° and 2.01°, respectively. In Tweed analysis, all the measured variables were significantly different between the three methods, except the AFH. Particularly, the values of IMPA, POr-OcP, PFH, and facial height index were significantly different in Carestream than both Onyxceph and WebCeph. Fewer and smaller discrepancies were detected between WebCeph and the manual gold standard than those detected between Carestream and the manual gold standard.
conclusionsThe freely available AI web-based platform, WebCeph, performed comparably to manual tracing, and outperformed the commercially available AI desktop-based software, Carestream, in several key parameters, making it a viable tool for resource-limited settings.
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.