Evaluation of an online website-based platform for cephalometric analysis

Comparison of Three Commercially Available, AI-Driven Cephalometric Analysis Tools in Orthodontics

Background: Cephalometric analysis (CA) is an indispensable diagnostic tool in orthodontics for treatment planning and outcome assessment. Manual CA is time-consuming and prone to variability. Methods: This study aims to compare the accuracy and repeatability of CA results among three commercial AI-driven programs: CephX, WebCeph, and AudaxCeph. This study involved a retrospective analysis of lateral cephalograms from a single orthodontic center. Automated CA was performed using the AI programs, focusing on common parameters defined by Downs, Ricketts, and Steiner. Repeatability was tested through 50 randomly reanalyzed cases by each software. Statistical analyses included intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3) for agreement and the Friedman test for concordance. Results: One hundred twenty-four cephalograms were analyzed. High agreement between the AI systems was noted for most parameters (ICC3 > 0.9). Notable differences were found in the measurements of angle convexity and the occlusal plane, where discrepancies suggested different methodologies among the programs. Some analyses presented high variability in the results, indicating errors. Repeatability analysis revealed perfect agreement within each program. Conclusions: AI-driven cephalometric analysis tools demonstrate a high potential for reliable and efficient orthodontic assessments, with substantial agreement in repeated analyses. Despite this, the observed discrepancies and high variability in part of analyses underscore the need for standardization across AI platforms and the critical evaluation of automated results by clinicians, particularly in parameters with significant treatment implications.

Reliability of the AI-Assisted Assessment of the Proximity of the Root Apices to Mandibular Canal

Background: This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of an AI-assisted tool in assessing the proximity of the mandibular canal (MC) to the root apices (RAs) of mandibular teeth using computed tomography (CT). Methods: This study involved 57 patients aged 18-30 whose CT scans were analyzed by both AI and human experts. The primary aim was to measure the closest distance between the MC and RAs and to assess the AI tool's diagnostic performance. The results indicated significant variability in RA-MC distances, with third molars showing the smallest mean distances and first molars the greatest. Diagnostic accuracy metrics for the AI tool were assessed at three thresholds (0 mm, 0.5 mm, and 1 mm). Results: The AI demonstrated high specificity but generally low diagnostic accuracy, with the highest metrics at the 0.5 mm threshold with 40.91% sensitivity and 97.06% specificity. Conclusions: This study underscores the limited potential of tested AI programs in reducing iatrogenic damage to the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) during dental procedures. Significant differences in RA-MC distances between evaluated teeth were found.

Accuracy of Gonial Angle Measurements Using Panoramic Imaging versus Lateral Cephalograms in Adults with Different Mandibular Divergence Patterns

Introduction

Gonial angle is an important craniofacial parameter providing information about symmetry and vertical dimensions of the facial skeleton. It can be measured on panoramic radiographs and lateral cephalograms. Reliable assessment of the gonial angle is challenged by the superimpositions associated with lateral cephalograms. The aim of the current study was to assess the precision of panoramic imaging in measuring the gonial angles compared to lateral cephalograms in adult patients with different mandibular divergence patterns.

Methods

Panoramic radiographs and lateral cephalograms of 448 adults (18-30 years old) were utilized in the study. The gonial angle was determined on the lateral cephalograms using an online AI-driven assessment tool (WebCephTM) and compared to the panoramic measurements among the different gender, malocclusion, and mandibular divergence groups.

Results

Statistically significant differences were recorded between measurements taken on lateral cephalograms or panoramic radiographs (p=0.022). In addition, statistically significant differences were reported in gonial angle measurements on panoramic radiographs among the different mandibular divergence groups (p=0.004) for FMA (p=0.002) for Sn-GoMe.

Conclusion

While cephalometry is considered the gold standard tool for reliable gonial angle assessment, panoramic radiographs were more accurate in detecting the differences between the divergence groups in the current study.

Cephalometric analysis performance discrepancy between orthodontists and an artificial intelligence model using lateral cephalometric radiographs

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present clinical study was to compare the Ricketts and Steiner cephalometric analysis obtained by two experienced orthodontists and artificial intelligence (AI)-based software program and measure the orthodontist variability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 50 lateral cephalometric radiographs from 50 patients were obtained. Two groups were created depending on the operator performing the cephalometric analysis: orthodontists (Orthod group) and an AI software program (AI group). In the Orthod group, two independent experienced orthodontists performed the measurements by performing a manual identification of the cephalometric landmarks and a software program (NemoCeph; Nemotec) to calculate the measurements. In the AI group, an AI software program (CephX; ORCA Dental AI) was selected for both the automatic landmark identification and cephalometric measurements. The Ricketts and Steiner cephalometric analyses were assessed in both groups including a total of 24 measurements. The Shapiro-Wilk test showed that the data was normally distributed. The t-test was used to analyze the data (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The t-test analysis showed significant measurement discrepancies between the Orthod and AI group in seven of the 24 cephalometric parameters tested, namely the corpus length (p = 0.003), mandibular arc (p < 0.001), lower face height (p = 0.005), overjet (p = 0.019), and overbite (p = 0.022) in the Ricketts cephalometric analysis and occlusal to SN (p = 0.002) and GoGn-SN (p < 0.001) in the Steiner cephalometric analysis. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between both orthodontists of the Orthod group for each cephalometric measurement was calculated.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant discrepancies were found in seven of the 24 cephalometric measurements tested between the orthodontists and the AI-based program assessed. The intra-operator reliability analysis showed reproducible measurements between both orthodontists, except for the corpus length measurement.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The artificial intelligence software program tested has the potential to automatically obtain cephalometric analysis using lateral cephalometric radiographs; however, additional studies are needed to further evaluate the accuracy of this AI-based system.

Accuracy and clinical validity of automated cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural networks

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the error range of cephalometric measurements based on the landmarks detected using cascaded CNNs and determine how horizontal and vertical positional errors of individual landmarks affect lateral cephalometric measurements.

METHODS

In total, 120 lateral cephalograms were obtained consecutively from patients (mean age, 32.5 ± 11.6) who visited the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, for orthodontic treatment between 2019 and 2021. An automated lateral cephalometric analysis model previously developed from a nationwide multi-centre database was used to digitize the lateral cephalograms. The horizontal and vertical landmark position error attributable to the AI model was defined as the distance between the landmark identified by the human and that identified by the AI model on the x- and y-axes. The differences between the cephalometric measurements based on the landmarks identified by the AI model vs those identified by the human examiner were assessed. The association between the lateral cephalometric measurements and the positioning errors in the landmarks comprising the cephalometric measurement was assessed.

RESULTS

The mean difference in the angular and linear measurements based on AI vs human landmark localization was .99 ± 1.05°, and .80 ± .82 mm, respectively. Significant differences between the measurements derived from AI-based and human localization were observed for all cephalometric variables except SNA, pog-Nperp, facial angle, SN-GoGn, FMA, Bjork sum, U1-SN, U1-FH, IMPA, L1-NB (angular) and interincisal angle.

CONCLUSIONS

The errors in landmark positions, especially those that define reference planes, may significantly affect cephalometric measurements. The possibility of errors generated by automated lateral cephalometric analysis systems should be considered when using such systems for orthodontic diagnoses.

Skeletal facial asymmetry: reliability of manual and artificial intelligence-driven analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare artificial intelligence (AI)-driven web-based platform and manual measurements for analysing facial asymmetry in craniofacial CT examinations.

METHODS

The study included 95 craniofacial CT scans from patients aged 18-30 years. The degree of asymmetry was measured based on AI platform-predefined anatomical landmarks: sella (S), condylion (Co), anterior nasal spine (ANS), and menton (Me). The concordance between the results of automatic asymmetry reports and manual linear 3D measurements was calculated. The asymmetry rate (AR) indicator was determined for both automatic and manual measurements, and the concordance between them was calculated. The repeatability of manual measurements in 20 randomly selected subjects was assessed. The concordance of measurements of quantitative variables was assessed with interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) according to the Shrout and Fleiss classification.

RESULTS

Erroneous AI tracings were found in 16.8% of cases, reducing the analysed cases to 79. The agreement between automatic and manual asymmetry measurements was very low (ICC < 0.3). A lack of agreement between AI and manual AR analysis (ICC type 3 = 0) was found. The repeatability of manual measurements and AR calculations showed excellent correlation (ICC type 2 > 0.947).

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that the rate of tracing errors and lack of agreement with manual AR analysis make it impossible to use the tested AI platform to assess the degree of facial asymmetry.

Assessment of landmark detection in cephalometric radiographs with different conditions of brightness and contrast using the an artificial intelligence software

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of an artificial intelligence (AI) software in identifying cephalometric points on lateral cephalometric radiographs considering four settings of brightness and contrast.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Brightness and contrast of 30 lateral cephalometric radiographs were adjusted into four different settings. Then, the control examiner (ECont), the calibrated examiner (ECal), and the CEFBOT AI software (AIs) each marked 19 cephalometric points on all radiographs. Reliability was assessed with a second analysis of the radiographs 15 days after the first one. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Reliability of landmark identification was excellent for the human examiners and the AIs regardless of the type of brightness and contrast setting (mean intraclass correlation coefficient >0.89). When ECont and ECal were compared for reproducibility, there were more cephalometric points with significant differences on the x-axis of the image with the highest contrast and the lowest brightness, namely N(p = 0.033), S(p = 0.030), Po(p < 0.001), and Pog'(p = 0.012). Between ECont and AIs, there were more cephalometric points with significant differences on the image with the highest contrast and the lowest brightness, namely N(p = 0.034), Or(p = 0.048), Po(p < 0.001), A(p = 0.042), Pog'(p = 0.004), Ll(p = 0.005), Ul(p < 0.001), and Sn(p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

While the reliability of the AIs for cephalometric landmark identification was rated as excellent, low brightness and high contrast seemed to affect its reproducibility. The experienced human examiner, on the other hand, did not show such faulty reproducibility; therefore, the AIs used in this study is an excellent auxiliary tool for cephalometric analysis, but still depends on human supervision to be clinically reliable.

Correlation Analysis of Nasal Septum Deviation and Results of AI-Driven Automated 3D Cephalometric Analysis

The nasal septum is believed to play a crucial role in the development of the craniofacial skeleton. Nasal septum deviation (NSD) is a common condition, affecting 18-65% of individuals. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of NSD and its potential association with abnormalities detected through cephalometric analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. The study included CT scans of 120 consecutive, post-traumatic patients aged 18-30. Cephalometric analysis was performed using an AI web-based software, CephX. The automatic analysis comprised all the available cephalometric analyses. NSD was assessed using two methods: maximum deviation from an ideal non-deviated septum and septal deviation angle (SDA). The concordance of repeated manual measurements and automatic analyses was assessed. Of the 120 cases, 90 met the inclusion criteria. The AI-based cephalometric analysis provided comprehensive reports with over 100 measurements. Only the hinge axis angle (HAA) and SDA showed significant (p = 0.039) negative correlations. The rest of the cephalometric analyses showed no correlation with the NSD indicators. The analysis of the agreement between repeated manual measurements and automatic analyses showed good-to-excellent concordance, except in the case of two angular measurements: LI-N-B and Pr-N-A. The CephX AI platform showed high repeatability in automatic cephalometric analyses, demonstrating the reliability of the AI model for most cephalometric analyses.

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontics: Current State and Future Perspectives

In recent years, there has been the notable emergency of artificial intelligence (AI) as a transformative force in multiple domains, including orthodontics. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the present state of AI applications in orthodontics, which can be categorized into the following domains: (1) diagnosis, including cephalometric analysis, dental analysis, facial analysis, skeletal-maturation-stage determination and upper-airway obstruction assessment; (2) treatment planning, including decision making for extractions and orthognathic surgery, and treatment outcome prediction; and (3) clinical practice, including practice guidance, remote care, and clinical documentation. We have witnessed a broadening of the application of AI in orthodontics, accompanied by advancements in its performance. Additionally, this review outlines the existing limitations within the field and offers future perspectives.

Evaluating the accuracy of automated cephalometric analysis based on artificial intelligence

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of automatic cephalometric landmark localization and measurements using cephalometric analysis via artificial intelligence (AI) compared with computer-assisted manual analysis.

METHODS

Reconstructed lateral cephalograms (RLCs) from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in 85 patients were selected. Computer-assisted manual analysis (Dolphin Imaging 11.9) and AI automatic analysis (Planmeca Romexis 6.2) were used to locate 19 landmarks and obtain 23 measurements. Mean radial error (MRE) and successful detection rate (SDR) values were calculated to assess the accuracy of automatic landmark digitization. Paired t tests and Bland‒Altman plots were used to compare the differences and consistencies in cephalometric measurements between manual and automatic analysis programs.

RESULTS

The MRE for 19 cephalometric landmarks was 2.07 ± 1.35 mm with the automatic program. The average SDR within 1 mm, 2 mm, 2.5 mm, 3 and 4 mm were 18.82%, 58.58%, 71.70%, 82.04% and 91.39%, respectively. Soft tissue landmarks (1.54 ± 0.85 mm) had the most consistency, while dental landmarks (2.37 ± 1.55 mm) had the most variation. In total, 15 out of 23 measurements were within the clinically acceptable level of accuracy, 2 mm or 2°. The rates of consistency within the 95% limits of agreement were all above 90% for all measurement parameters.

CONCLUSION

Automatic analysis software collects cephalometric measurements almost effectively enough to be acceptable in clinical work. Nevertheless, automatic cephalometry is not capable of completely replacing manual tracing. Additional manual supervision and adjustment for automatic programs can increase accuracy and efficiency.

Evaluating the accuracy of automated cephalometric analysis based on artificial intelligence

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of automatic cephalometric landmark localization and measurements using cephalometric analysis via artificial intelligence (AI) compared with computer-assisted manual analysis.

METHODS

Reconstructed lateral cephalograms (RLCs) from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in 85 patients were selected. Computer-assisted manual analysis (Dolphin Imaging 11.9) and AI automatic analysis (Planmeca Romexis 6.2) were used to locate 19 landmarks and obtain 23 measurements. Mean radial error (MRE) and successful detection rate (SDR) values were calculated to assess the accuracy of automatic landmark digitization. Paired t tests and Bland‒Altman plots were used to compare the differences and consistencies in cephalometric measurements between manual and automatic analysis programs.

RESULTS

The MRE for 19 cephalometric landmarks was 2.07 ± 1.35 mm with the automatic program. The average SDR within 1 mm, 2 mm, 2.5 mm, 3 and 4 mm were 18.82%, 58.58%, 71.70%, 82.04% and 91.39%, respectively. Soft tissue landmarks (1.54 ± 0.85 mm) had the most consistency, while dental landmarks (2.37 ± 1.55 mm) had the most variation. In total, 15 out of 23 measurements were within the clinically acceptable level of accuracy, 2 mm or 2°. The rates of consistency within the 95% limits of agreement were all above 90% for all measurement parameters.

CONCLUSION

Automatic analysis software collects cephalometric measurements almost effectively enough to be acceptable in clinical work. Nevertheless, automatic cephalometry is not capable of completely replacing manual tracing. Additional manual supervision and adjustment for automatic programs can increase accuracy and efficiency.

Development, Application, and Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Cephalometric Landmark Identification and Diagnosis: A Systematic Review

This study aimed to analyze the existing literature on how artificial intelligence is being used to support the identification of cephalometric landmarks. The systematic analysis of literature was carried out by performing an extensive search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Scopus, and Science Direct databases. Articles published in the last ten years were selected after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 17 full-text articles were systematically appraised. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (CHSRI) and Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) were adopted for quality analysis of the included studies. The artificial intelligence systems were mainly based on deep learning-based convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in the included studies. The majority of the studies proposed that AI-based automatic cephalometric analyses provide clinically acceptable diagnostic performance. They have worked remarkably well, with accuracy and precision similar to the trained orthodontist. Moreover, they can simplify cephalometric analysis and provide a quick outcome in practice. Therefore, they are of great benefit to orthodontists, as with these systems they can perform tasks more efficiently.

Cephalometric Analysis in Orthodontics Using Artificial Intelligence-A Comprehensive Review

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of science concerned with developing programs and computers that can gather data, reason about it, and then translate it into intelligent actions. AI is a broad area that includes reasoning, typical linguistic dispensation, machine learning, and planning. In the area of medicine and dentistry, machine learning is currently the most widely used AI application. This narrative review is aimed at giving an outline of cephalometric analysis in orthodontics using AI. Latest algorithms are developing rapidly, and computational resources are increasing, resulting in increased efficiency, accuracy, and reliability. Current techniques for completely automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks have considerably improved efficiency and growth prospects for their regular use. The primary considerations for effective orthodontic treatment are an accurate diagnosis, exceptional treatment planning, and good prognosis estimation. The main objective of the AI technique is to make dentists' work more precise and accurate. AI is increasingly being used in the area of orthodontic treatment. It has been evidenced to be a time-saving and reliable tool in many ways. AI is a promising tool for facilitating cephalometric tracing in routine clinical practice and analyzing large databases for research purposes.

Evaluation of the accuracy and reliability of WebCeph – An artificial intelligence-based online software

Objectives:

Landmark identification is of utmost importance in cephalometric analysis but it turns out to be the main source of error. With modern inventions in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), it becomes essential to assess the reliability of computer-automated programs. A greater deal of time can be conserved with fully automated programs such as WebCeph, which uses an AI-based algorithm that performs automated and immediate cephalometric analysis. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and duration of tracing cephalometric radiographs with WebCeph, an AI-based software in comparison to digital tracing with FACAD and manual tracing. The null hypothesis proposed is that there is no statistically significant difference among the three methods with regard to accuracy of cephalometric analysis.

Material and Methods:

Pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 25 patients (14 males and 11 females, mean age of 18 ± 3.2 years) were selected randomly from the dental information archiving software of Saveetha University, Department of Orthodontics, Chennai. Composite analysis with skeletal, dental and soft-tissue parameters was selected and cephalometric analysis was done with all three methods – Manual tracing (Group 1), digital tracing using FACAD (Group 2), and fully automated AI-based software WebCeph (Group 3). The timing for each method of analysis was calculated using a stopwatch in seconds. Values were tabulated in an Excel sheet and statistical analysis including one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test were performed.

Results:

No statistically significant difference was found between the three methods for cephalometric analysis, P > 0.05. The time taken for measurement using the three different methods was the least while using WebCeph (30.2 ± 6.4 s) and the maximum while manual tracing (472 ± 40.4 s).

Conclusion:

WebCeph is a reliable, faster and practical tool for analyzing cephalometric analysis in comparison to digital tracing using FACAD and manual tracing.

Evaluation of fully automated cephalometric measurements obtained from web-based artificial intelligence driven platform

Background

Artificial Intelligence has created a huge impact in different areas of dentistry. Automated cephalometric analysis is one of the major applications of artificial intelligence in the field of orthodontics. Various automated cephalometric software have been developed which utilizes artificial intelligence and claim to be reliable. The purpose of this study was to compare the linear and angular cephalometric measurements obtained from web-based fully automated Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven platform “WebCeph”™ with that from manual tracing and evaluate the validity and reliability of automated cephalometric measurements obtained from “WebCeph”™.

Methods

Thirty pre-treatment lateral cephalograms of patients were randomly selected. For manual tracing, digital images of same cephalograms were printed using compatible X-ray printer. After calibration, a total of 18 landmarks was plotted and 12 measurements (8 angular and 4 linear) were obtained using standard protocols. The digital images of each cephalogram were uploaded to “WebCeph”™ server. After image calibration, the automated cephalometric measurements obtained through AI digitization were downloaded for each image. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine agreement between the measurements obtained from two methods. ICC value < 0.75 was considered as poor to moderate agreement while an ICC value between 0.75 and 0.90 was considered as good agreement. Agreement was rated as excellent when ICC value > 0.90 was obtained.

Results

All the measurements had ICC value above 0.75. A higher ICC value > 0.9 was obtained for seven parameters i.e. ANB, FMA, IMPA/L1 to MP (°), LL to E-line, L1 to NB (mm), L1 to NB (°), S-N to Go-Gn whereas five parameters i.e. UL to E-line, U1 to NA (mm), SNA, SNB, U1 to NA (°) showed ICC value between 0.75 and 0.90.

Conclusion

A good agreement was found between the cephalometric measurements obtained from “WebCeph”™ and manual tracing.

Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings

Objective

To compare the accuracy of cephalometric analyses made with fully automated tracings, computerized tracing, and app-aided tracings with equivalent hand-traced measurements, and to evaluate the tracing time for each cephalometric analysis method.

Methods

Pre-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of 40 patients were randomly selected. Eight angular and 4 linear parameters were measured by 1 operator using 3 methods: computerized tracing with software Dolphin Imaging 13.01(Dolphin Imaging and Management Solutions, Chatsworth, Calif, USA), app-aided tracing using the CephNinja 3.51 app (Cyncronus LLC, WA, USA), and web-based fully automated tracing with CephX (ORCA Dental AI, Las Vegas, NV). Correction of CephX landmarks was also made. Manual tracings were performed by 3 operators. Remeasurement of 15 radiographs was carried out to determine the intra-examiner and inter-examiner (manual tracings) correlation coefficient (ICC). Inter-group comparisons were made with one-way analysis of variance. The Tukey test was used for post hoc testing.

Results

Overall, greater variability was found with CephX compared with the other methods. Differences in GoGn-SN (°), I-NA (°), I-NB (°), I-NA (mm), and I-NB (mm) were statistically (p<0.05) and clinically significant using CephX, whereas CephNinja and Dolphin were comparable to manual tracings. Correction of CephX landmarks gave similar results to CephNinja and Dolphin. All the ICCs exceeded 0.85, except for I-NA (°), I-NB (°), and I-NB (mm), which were traced with CephX. The shortest analyzing time was obtained with CephX.

Conclusion

Fully automatic analysis with CephX needs to be more reliable. However, CephX analysis with manual correction is promising for use in clinical practice because it is comparable to CephNinja and Dolphin, and the analyzing time is significantly shorter.