Automation and apps for clinical dental biomechanics

Evaluation and comparison of smartphone application tracing, web based artificial intelligence tracing and conventional hand tracing methods

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the reliability of three different cephalometric assessment methods: Smartphone Application Tracing Method CephNinja (SATM), Web Based Artificial Intelligence (AI) Driven Tracing Method WebCeph (WATM) and Conventional Hand Tracing Method (CHTM).

METHODS

110 lateral cephalometric radiographs were enrolled in the study and 4 linear and 7 angular parameters were traced and measured by one examiner using CephNinja, WebCeph and conventional hand tracing methods. Independent-samples Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro Wilks tests were used to compare the mean values of intra-examiner differences. Both intra-method and inter-method correlations were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences between the methods in terms of SNA (p:0.003; p < 0.05); SNB measurements (p:0.001; p < 0.05); SN-MP angle (p:0.001; p < 0.05); U1-SN angle (p:0.001; p < 0.05); L1-NB(mm) (p:0.007; p < 0.05) and E Line-Upper Lip(mm) measurements (p:0.013; p < 0.05). All intra-method correlation coefficients are 80% and above. In terms of inter-method coefficients the lowest coefficient of agreement is 0.170 and it is the coefficient of agreement between CHTM and SATM for measurement of U1-NA. The highest coefficient of agreement is 0.884 which is between WBTM and SATM for SNB measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

The null hypothesis was rejected. There were statistically and clinically significant differences in various measurements among groups.

Manual tracing versus smartphone application (app) tracing: a comparative study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the results of conventional manual cephalometric tracing with those acquired with smartphone application cephalometric tracing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The cephalometric radiographs of 55 patients (25 females and 30 males) were traced via the manual and app methods and were subsequently examined with Steiner's analysis. Five skeletal measurements, five dental measurements and two soft tissue measurements were managed based on 21 landmarks. The durations of the performances of the two methods were also compared.

RESULTS

SNA (Sella, Nasion, A point angle) and SNB (Sella, Nasion, B point angle) values for the manual method were statistically lower (p < .001) than those for the app method. The ANB value for the manual method was statistically lower than that of app method. L1-NB (°) and upper lip protrusion values for the manual method were statistically higher than those for the app method. Go-GN/SN, U1-NA (°) and U1-NA (mm) values for manual method were statistically lower than those for the app method. No differences between the two methods were found in the L1-NB (mm), occlusal plane to SN, interincisal angle or lower lip protrusion values.

CONCLUSIONS

Although statistically significant differences were found between the two methods, the cephalometric tracing proceeded faster with the app method than with the manual method.