Progress in orthodontics · 2026
Evaluation of artificial intelligence-based cephalometric analysis compared to the manual method.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alvarado-Lorenzo Alfonso, Criado-Pérez Laura, Garcovich Daniele, Romero Sabina, Scuzzo Giuseppe, Scuzzo Giacomo, Curto Adrián
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The application of artificial intelligence (AI) to cephalometry has aroused growing interest due to its potential to optimize clinical workflows and improve efficiency. This study aimed to compare the differences and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements obtained using three methods: manual, WebCeph™ and AngelAligner™.
METHODOLOGY: 30 patients were analysed, evaluating 9 measurements generated by the three methods at two different timepoints (T1 and T2).
RESULTS: WebCeph™ presented significant differences as compared to the manual method in 7 of the 9 measurements (SNA, SNB, ANB, U1-APg, L1-APg, GoGn-SN, U1-L1), while AngelAligner™ displayed significant differences with the manual method in 4 measurements (SNA, U1-APg, L1-APg and U1-L1). Significant differences were found between the two AI-based systems in 7 of the 9 measurements. Reproducibility was high at all angles with the manual method, except for U1-L1, NLA, and LFH. The ICC was 1 for all measurements for both AI-based systems, indicating optimal reproducibility. When grouping by malocclusions, however, WebCeph™ presented greater differences with the manual method than AngelAligner™.
CONCLUSION: AI-based methods offered greater reproducibility than the manual method, but still require human supervision.
METHODOLOGY: 30 patients were analysed, evaluating 9 measurements generated by the three methods at two different timepoints (T1 and T2).
RESULTS: WebCeph™ presented significant differences as compared to the manual method in 7 of the 9 measurements (SNA, SNB, ANB, U1-APg, L1-APg, GoGn-SN, U1-L1), while AngelAligner™ displayed significant differences with the manual method in 4 measurements (SNA, U1-APg, L1-APg and U1-L1). Significant differences were found between the two AI-based systems in 7 of the 9 measurements. Reproducibility was high at all angles with the manual method, except for U1-L1, NLA, and LFH. The ICC was 1 for all measurements for both AI-based systems, indicating optimal reproducibility. When grouping by malocclusions, however, WebCeph™ presented greater differences with the manual method than AngelAligner™.
CONCLUSION: AI-based methods offered greater reproducibility than the manual method, but still require human supervision.