Comparison of AI-assisted cephalometric analysis and orthodontist-performed digital tracing analysis

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorBor, Sabahattin
dc.contributor.authorCigerim, Saadet Cinarsoy
dc.contributor.authorKotan, Seda
dc.date.accessioned2026-04-04T13:33:05Z
dc.date.available2026-04-04T13:33:05Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.departmentİnönü Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractBackground The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate three AI-assisted cephalometric analysis platforms-CephX, WeDoCeph, and WebCeph-with the traditional digital tracing method using NemoCeph software. Material and method A total of 1500 lateral cephalometric films that met the inclusion criteria were classified as Class I, Class II, and Class III. Subsequently, 40 patients were randomly selected from each class. These selected films were uploaded to 3 AI-assisted cephalometric analysis platforms and analyzed without any manual intervention. The same films were also analyzed by an orthodontist using the NemoCeph program. Results The results revealed significant differences in key angular measurements (ANB, FMA, IMPA, and NLA) across Class I, II, and III patients when comparing the four cephalometric analysis methods (WebCeph, WeDoCeph, CephX, and NemoCeph). Notably, ANB (p < 0.05), FMA (p < 0.001), IMPA (p < 0.001), and NLA (p < 0.001) varied significantly. Linear measurements also differed, with significant differences in U1-NA (p = 0.002) and Co-A (p = 0.002) in certain classes. Repeated measurement analysis revealed variation in SNA (p = 0.011) and FMA (p = 0.030), particularly in the Class II NemoCeph group, suggesting method-dependent variability. Conclusion AI-assisted cephalometric analysis platforms such as WebCeph, WeDoCeph, and CephX give rise to notable variation in accuracy and reliability compared to traditional manual digital tracing, specifically in terms of angular and linear measurements. These results emphasize the importance of meticulous selection and assessment of analysis methods in orthodontic diagnostics and treatment planning.
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s40510-024-00539-x
dc.identifier.issn2196-1042
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-3405-4851
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-5463-0057
dc.identifier.pmid39428414
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85206872009
dc.identifier.scopusqualityN/A
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-024-00539-x
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11616/108910
dc.identifier.volume25
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001337908600001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringer
dc.relation.ispartofProgress in Orthodontics
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250329
dc.subjectAI-assisted cephalometric analysis
dc.subjectAngular and linear measurements
dc.subject2D lateral films
dc.subjectDiagnostic accuracy
dc.titleComparison of AI-assisted cephalometric analysis and orthodontist-performed digital tracing analysis
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu