Progress in orthodontics · 2024
Comparison of AI-assisted cephalometric analysis and orthodontist-performed digital tracing analysis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Bor Sabahattin, Ciğerim Saadet Çınarsoy, Kotan Seda
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate three AI-assisted cephalometric analysis platforms-CephX, WeDoCeph, and WebCeph-with the traditional digital tracing method using NemoCeph software.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: A total of 1500 lateral cephalometric films that met the inclusion criteria were classified as Class I, Class II, and Class III. Subsequently, 40 patients were randomly selected from each class. These selected films were uploaded to 3 AI-assisted cephalometric analysis platforms and analyzed without any manual intervention. The same films were also analyzed by an orthodontist using the NemoCeph program.
RESULTS: The results revealed significant differences in key angular measurements (ANB, FMA, IMPA, and NLA) across Class I, II, and III patients when comparing the four cephalometric analysis methods (WebCeph, WeDoCeph, CephX, and NemoCeph). Notably, ANB (p < 0.05), FMA (p < 0.001), IMPA (p < 0.001), and NLA (p < 0.001) varied significantly. Linear measurements also differed, with significant differences in U1-NA (p = 0.002) and Co-A (p = 0.002) in certain classes. Repeated measurement analysis revealed variation in SNA (p = 0.011) and FMA (p = 0.030), particularly in the Class II NemoCeph group, suggesting method-dependent variability.
CONCLUSION: AI-assisted cephalometric analysis platforms such as WebCeph, WeDoCeph, and CephX give rise to notable variation in accuracy and reliability compared to traditional manual digital tracing, specifically in terms of angular and linear measurements. These results emphasize the importance of meticulous selection and assessment of analysis methods in orthodontic diagnostics and treatment planning.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: A total of 1500 lateral cephalometric films that met the inclusion criteria were classified as Class I, Class II, and Class III. Subsequently, 40 patients were randomly selected from each class. These selected films were uploaded to 3 AI-assisted cephalometric analysis platforms and analyzed without any manual intervention. The same films were also analyzed by an orthodontist using the NemoCeph program.
RESULTS: The results revealed significant differences in key angular measurements (ANB, FMA, IMPA, and NLA) across Class I, II, and III patients when comparing the four cephalometric analysis methods (WebCeph, WeDoCeph, CephX, and NemoCeph). Notably, ANB (p < 0.05), FMA (p < 0.001), IMPA (p < 0.001), and NLA (p < 0.001) varied significantly. Linear measurements also differed, with significant differences in U1-NA (p = 0.002) and Co-A (p = 0.002) in certain classes. Repeated measurement analysis revealed variation in SNA (p = 0.011) and FMA (p = 0.030), particularly in the Class II NemoCeph group, suggesting method-dependent variability.
CONCLUSION: AI-assisted cephalometric analysis platforms such as WebCeph, WeDoCeph, and CephX give rise to notable variation in accuracy and reliability compared to traditional manual digital tracing, specifically in terms of angular and linear measurements. These results emphasize the importance of meticulous selection and assessment of analysis methods in orthodontic diagnostics and treatment planning.