ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2026
Accuracy of cephalometric landmark identification on artificial intelligence-based software: a comparative study.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCephalometry has long been a cornerstone of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. While traditionally performed manually, cephalometric analysis has increasingly shifted toward semi-automated or fully automated computer-based software, due to advances in technology.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate and compare the accuracy of anatomical landmarks identified manually by orthodontists using digital tools versus those identified automatically by various artificial intelligence (AI)-based cephalometric software.
methodsA total of 25 lateral cephalometric radiographs were selected for analysis. Manual landmark identification was independently performed by two orthodontists using the digital cephalometric software NemoCeph. These were compared to the automatic landmark identifications generated by two AI-based programs: CephNinja and WebCeph™. A total of 17 anatomical landmarks, 15 hard tissue and 2 soft tissue points, were evaluated. The 17 cephalometric landmarks selected in this study are among the most commonly used and reliably identifiable reference points in the literature. To facilitate direct visual comparison, landmark positions derived from all three methods were overlaid using semi-transparent image layers. One-way ANOVA and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) tests were conducted to assess inter-method differences. The threshold for statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01.
resultsStatistically significant differences were observed at the porion, basion, gonion, and the apexes of the upper and lower incisors (p < 0.05). Compared to the manual tracings in NemoCeph, AI-based software generally placed these landmarks in more distal and superior positions. Among the AI tools, CephNinja showed greater similarity to NemoCeph for the gonion and basion points, while WebCeph™ was closer at the incisor apexes.
conclusionAlthough AI-based cephalometric software offers rapid and reproducible assessments, certain anatomical landmarks - particularly porion, basion, gonion, and the apexes of the upper and lower incisors - demonstrate statistically significant positional discrepancies, compared to manual tracings. Clinicians should be cautious when relying exclusively on automated analyses for diagnostic or treatment planning purposes, since AI struggles with certain landmarks, due to algorithmic limitations.
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.