ArticleHead & face medicine2026
Evaluation of cephalometric landmarks using artificial intelligence compared to the manual method.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is growing interest in cephalometric methods based on artificial intelligence (AI), as they can significantly reduce clinicians’ workload and increase productivity. However, the literature indicates that further research is required to bridge the gap between operator-performed and AI-performed cephalometry. The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the reproducibility and accuracy of three cephalometric methods: Manual, WebCeph™ and AngelAligner™.
methodsThirty cephalograms from 30 patients (50% male, 50% female) were analyzed. Thirty-five landmarks were recorded using three different methodologies (Manual, WebCeph™, and AngelAligner™) at two time points (T1 and T2).
resultsThe method with the highest number of cephalometric landmarks showing an excellent successful detection rate (SDR) was the manual method, in which 18 of the 35 points demonstrated an SDR < 1 mm in 80% of the analyzed cephalograms, thus being the most accurate. However, greater T1–T2 variations were observed with the manual method. The AI methods showed high and statistically significant correlations for all landmarks (p < 0.01), except for Pg’. The manual method showed low and non-significant correlations for all points except Na’ (p < 0.05) and UL (p < 0.01).
conclusionsFully automated, AI-based cephalometric methods are more reproducible than manual methods. In terms of accuracy, certain AI-based point detections may be comparable to those of an expert, although supervision remains necessary to ensure precise and reliable results.
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.