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
Comparative Study
. 2025 Jun;23(2):100990.
doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2025.100990. Epub 2025 Feb 19.

Accuracy of cephalometric landmark identification by artificial intelligence platform versus expert orthodontist in unilateral cleft palate patients: A retrospective study

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Accuracy of cephalometric landmark identification by artificial intelligence platform versus expert orthodontist in unilateral cleft palate patients: A retrospective study

Mostafa A Tageldin et al. Int Orthod. 2025 Jun.

Abstract

Objective: The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of automated artificial intelligence (AI) cephalometric landmark identification in cleft patients and compare it to landmarks identified by an expert orthodontist. The secondary objective was to compare cephalometric measurements obtained by both methods.

Material and methods: A total of 112 pre-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of unilateral cleft palate patients were collected from the archives of the Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University following screening of all the records of patients treated in the period January 2019-December 2022 for eligibility. For each of the acquired radiographs, cephalometric tracing was performed by fully automated WebCeph™ landmark detection process and by manual identification of the landmarks by an expert orthodontist using OnyxCeph™ software. The traced radiographs were then imported into Photoshop software for evaluation of the (x,y) coordinates, in mm, for each of the identified landmarks (Primary outcome). Moreover, linear and angular measurements generated using WebCeph™ and OnyxCeph™ software were compared (secondary outcomes).

Results: The coordinates of A-point, ANS, and Or showed statistically significant differences between both identification methods, with a mean difference between the two methods ranging between -0.86mm±2.15 and 3.15mm±6.07. None of the dental landmarks showed statistically significant differences between the two methods. None of the soft tissue landmarks showed statistically significant differences, except Ns y-coordinate. Several points showed clinically significant differences between both methods. The greatest mean differences in cephalometric measurements between the two methods were reported in nasolabial angle CotgSnLs (18.3±22.77̊) followed by Max1-NA (-8.86±17.46̊) and Max1-SN (-8.43±12.51̊).

Conclusions: The identification of cephalometric landmarks in cleft palate patients using the web-based AI platform is not as accurate as manual identification. Manual adjustment of landmarks following AI identification is advised.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Cephalometric landmark identification; Cephalometry; Cleft palate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure of interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources