ArticleProgress in orthodontics2026
Evaluation of artificial intelligence-based cephalometric analysis compared to the manual method.
Article in Progress in 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe application of artificial intelligence (AI) to cephalometry has aroused growing interest due to its potential to optimize clinical workflows and improve efficiency. This study aimed to compare the differences and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements obtained using three methods: manual, WebCeph™ and AngelAligner™. METHODOLOGY: 30 patients were analysed, evaluating 9 measurements generated by the three methods at two different timepoints (T1 and T2).
resultsWebCeph™ presented significant differences as compared to the manual method in 7 of the 9 measurements (SNA, SNB, ANB, U1-APg, L1-APg, GoGn-SN, U1-L1), while AngelAligner™ displayed significant differences with the manual method in 4 measurements (SNA, U1-APg, L1-APg and U1-L1). Significant differences were found between the two AI-based systems in 7 of the 9 measurements. Reproducibility was high at all angles with the manual method, except for U1-L1, NLA, and LFH. The ICC was 1 for all measurements for both AI-based systems, indicating optimal reproducibility. When grouping by malocclusions, however, WebCeph™ presented greater differences with the manual method than AngelAligner™.
conclusionAI-based methods offered greater reproducibility than the manual method, but still require human supervision.
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.