Reproducibility of linear and angular cephalometric measurements obtained by an artificial-intelligence assisted software (WebCeph) in comparison with digital software (AutoCEPH) and manual tracing method

Abstract

Introduction: It has been suggested that human errors during manual tracing of linear/angular cephalometric parameters can be eliminated by using computer-aided analysis. The landmarks, however, are located manually and the computer system completes the analysis. With the advent of Artificial Intelligence in the field of Dentistry, automatic location of the landmarks has become a promising tool in digital Orthodontics. Methods: Fifty pretreatment lateral cephalograms obtained from the Orthodontic department of SRM dental college (India) were used. Analysis were done by the same investigator using the following methods: WebCeph™, AutoCEPH© for Windows or manual tracing. Landmark identification was carried out automatically by Artificial Intelligence in WebCeph™ and with a mouse driven cursor in AutoCEPH©, and manually using acetate sheet and 0.3-mm pencil, ruler and a protractor. The mean differences of the cephalometric parameters obtained between the three methods were calculated using ANOVA with statistical significance set at p<0.05. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine both reproducibility and agreement between linear and angular measurements obtained from the three methods and intrarater reliability of repeated measurements. ICC value of >0.75 indicated good agreement. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficient between the three groups was >0.830, showing good level of agreement, and the value within each group was >0.950, indicating high intrarater reliability. Conclusion: Artificial Intelligence assisted software showed good agreement with AutoCEPH© and manual tracing for all the cephalometric measurements.

A comparative evaluation of concordance and speed between smartphone app-based and artificial intelligence web-based cephalometric tracing software with the manual tracing method: A cross-sectional study

“…This study found that the digital measurements consumed far less time than the manual tracing approach, which is consistent with previous findings ( 21 , 22 ). The analysis performed with the smartphone-based OneCeph and the artificial intelligence web-based WEBCEPH™ was nine times faster than that performed with the manual tracing method.…”

Digital versus Manual Tracing in Cephalometric Analysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…A total of n = 20 studies were identified fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria within the timeframe of 2013 to 2023 [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. The year-wise distribution of these studies is depicted in Figure 2 .…”

“…While the majority of the studies compared digital cephalometry with manual tracing as a control, some authors also compared two different softwares; for instance, one study compared Dolphin to AutoCeph, and two studies compared WebCeph to FACAD [ 29 , 36 , 40 ]. With the advent of AI-based software systems, recent investigators have tested and compared their utility against conventional computer software [ 36 , 40 , 41 ]. These researchers found that while AI-based software offers various advantages such as comfort, practicality, and speed, further research is crucial before declaring them enough to replace the adequately tested computer software.…”

Informatic tools for diagnosis in dentistry. A compilation review

“…Studies such as that of da Fonseca Reis et al (58) and Prince et al (59) argue that computer tools that enable cephalometric tracking offer several advantages in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. These tools improve accuracy, reproducibility, and efficiency in cephalometric image analysis.…”