Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 19;22(1):132.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02170-w.

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

Ravi Kumar Mahto  1 , Dashrath Kafle  2 , Abhishek Giri  2 , Sanjeev Luintel  2 , Arjun Karki  2
Affiliations

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

Ravi Kumar Mahto et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Lateral cephalogram; WebCeph™.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Landmarks [S: Sella, N: Nasion, Po: Porion, Or: orbitale, Go: Gonion, A: Point A, B: Point B, Pog: Pogonion, Me: Menton, Gn: Gnathion, TUI: Tip of Upper incisor, AUI: Apex of Upper incisor, TLI: Tip of lower incisor, ALI: Apex of Lower incisor, no: Tip of nose, Ls: Labrale Superius, Li: Labrale inferius, Pog′: Soft tissue pogonion,] and cephalometric parameters [ SNA, SNB, ANB, S-N to Gn, FMA, U1 to NA (°), U1 to NA (mm), L1 to NB (°), L1 to NB (mm), IMPA/L1 to MP (°), UL to E-line, LL to E-line] used in the study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Landmarks and tracing done by AI driven fully automated software “WebCeph”™
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Faulty identification of some landmarks by “WebCeph”™
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Steiner CC. The use of cephalometrics as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1960;46:721–735. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(60)90145-7. - DOI
    1. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements: 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod. 1971;60:111–127. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(71)90028-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements: 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod. 1971;60:505–517. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(71)90116-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ricketts RM. Perspectives in the clinical application of cephalometrics: the first fifty years. Angle Orthod. 1981;51:115–150. - PubMed
    1. Baumrind S, Miller DM. Computer-aided head film analysis: the University of California San Francisco method. Am J Orthod. 1980;78:41–65. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(80)90039-1. - DOI - PubMed