COMPARISON OFACCURACY AND RELIABILITY OF CEPHALOMETRIC LANDMARKS AMONG DIGITAL SOFTWARE WEB CEPH AND CARE STREAM WITH TRADITIONAL MANUAL TRACING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37762/jgmds.13-1.804Keywords:
Lateral Cephalometric Analysis,, Artificial Intelligence,, Carestream, Web Ceph, Web CephAbstract
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to compare the accuracy and reliability of AI-assisted software (WebCeph, Carestream) with manual tracing.
METHODOLOGY
This cross-sectional (analytical) study was conducted using the records of patients presenting to the Orthodontic Department, Rehman College of Dentistry (RCD), Peshawar, over a period of three months. Forty-two high-quality lateral cephalograms were traced manually for four skeletal (SNA, SNB, ANB, FMA), three dental (UI-SN, IMPA, Overjet), and three soft tissue parameters (UL-Eline, LL-Eline, and NLA). The same cephalograms were later digitally analyzed using AI-assisted software (Carestream and WebCeph). One-way ANOVA test and post hoc Tukey test were applied to assess any significant differences among the groups. Bonferroni correction was employed to adjust the significance level (alpha) for each test and multiple comparisons. Pearson Correlation coefficients were used to determine the correlation among the various group values.
RESULTS
Web Ceph and manual tracing revealed a significant difference in UI-SN, overjet, and UL-Eline (P<0.05). Comparison between manual tracing and Carestream showed significant differences in FMA, IMPA, UL-E line, and LL-Eline (P<0.05). While comparing Web Ceph and Carestream, significant differences were observed in UL-Eline, IMPA, and NLA (P<0.05). It was found that the differences in the mean values between AI-driven software and manual methods were clinically insignificant. However, differences among AI-driven methods were clinically significant.
CONCLUSION
AI-driven cephalometric digital tracing software, Web Ceph, and Carestream provide sufficiently reliable measurements for clinical application. Web Ceph showed better results for specific values than Carestream. The accuracy and consistency of automated software can be improved through manual adjustments and verification. Despite the clinical applicability, manual tracing cannot be replaced by computerized cephalometric.
Downloads
Metrics
References
REFERENCES
Nielsen IL. Cephalometric analysis: history and clinical application. Taiwan J Orthod. 2022 Dec 27;34(4):1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38209/2708-2636.1323
Schwendicke F, Chaurasia A, Arsiwala L, Lee JH, Elhennawy K, Jost-Brinkmann PG, et al. Deep learning for cephalometric landmark detection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Jul;25(7):4299–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03997-4. PMID: 33886143 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03990-w
Sennimalai K, Selvaraj M, Kharbanda OP, Kandasamy D, Mohaideen K. MRI-based cephalometrics: a scoping review of current insights and future perspectives. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2023 Jul;52(5):20230106. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20230106. PMID: 37365724 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20230024
Alsubai S. A critical review on the 3D cephalometric analysis using machine learning. Computers (Basel). 2022 Oct 28;11(11):154. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11110154 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11110154
Narkhede S, Rao P, Sawant V, Sachdev SS, Arora S, Pawar AM, et al. Digital versus manual tracing in cephalometric analysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pers Med. 2024 May 25;14(6):566. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14060566. PMID: 38892926 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14060566
AlBarakati S, Kula K, Ghoneima A. The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012 Jan;41(1):11–7. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/81804525. PMID: 22116109 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/37010910
Subramanian AK, Chen Y, Almalki A, Sivamurthy G, Kafle D. Cephalometric analysis in orthodontics using artificial intelligence-A comprehensive review. Biomed Res Int. 2022;2022:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9075785. PMID: 35223134 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1880113
Gil SM, Kim I, Cho JH, Hong M, Kim M, Kim SJ, et al. Accuracy of auto-identification of posteroanterior cephalometric landmarks using a cascade convolutional neural network algorithm. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022 Apr;161(4):e361-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.08.026. PMID: 35364377 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.11.011
Gurbade VV, Pacharaaney U, Puri C. Advancements in AI-driven cephalometric analysis for orthodontic applications: a review on automated landmark detection and angle assessment. In: 2025 4th International Conference on Sentiment Analysis and Deep Learning (ICSADL). IEEE; 2025. p. 1731–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSADL58257.2025.10496547 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSADL65848.2025.10933117
Bulatova G, Kusnoto B, Grace V, Tsay TP, Avenetti DM, Sanchez FJC. Assessment of automatic cephalometric landmark identification using artificial intelligence. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021 Dec;24(S2):37–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12529. PMID: 34927440 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12542
Foroozandeh M, Salemi F, Shokri A, Farhadian N, Aeini N, Hassanzadeh R. Comparative accuracy of AI-based AudaxCeph software, Dolphin software, and the manual technique for orthodontic landmark identification. Imaging Sci Dent. 2024;55(1):11–8. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.20240004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.20240089
Maniyar N, Prakash AT, Kumar HCK, Yavagal PC. Accuracy of Dolphin Imaging software in predicting soft tissue changes of Class II Division 1 cases treated by all first premolar extraction. J World Fed Orthod. 2024 Jun;13(3):128–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.02.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.01.005
Raby I, Rojas V, Celis A, García-Duhalde C, Martinac M. Accuracy and reliability of two artificial intelligence platforms for cephalometric analysis compared with a semi-automatic computer program. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2025 Oct;168(4):505–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2025.03.019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2025.04.011
Kazimierczak W, Gawin G, Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Dyszkiewicz-Konwińska M, Nowicki P, Kazimierczak N, et al. Comparison of three commercially available AI-driven cephalometric analysis tools in orthodontics. J Clin Med. 2024 Jun 26;13(13):3733. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13133733. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13133733
Tsolakis IA, Tsolakis AI, Elshebiny T, Matthaios S, Palomo JM. Comparing a fully automated cephalometric tracing method to a manual tracing method for orthodontic diagnosis. J Clin Med. 2022 Nov 20;11(22):6854. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11226854. PMID: 36430506 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11226854
Debelmas A, Ketoff S, Lanciaux S, Corre P, Friess M, Khonsari RH. Reproducibility assessment of Delaire cephalometric analysis using reconstructions from computed tomography. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Feb;121(1):35–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2019.08.006. PMID: 31611054 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2019.04.008
Tanellari O, Toti C, Baruti Papa E, Ghanim S, Savin C, Romanec C, et al. The link between obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and cephalometric assessment of upper airways and hyoid bone position. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 Sep;58(9):1213. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58091213. PMID: 36141968 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58091213
Polizzi A, Leonardi R. Automatic cephalometric landmark identification with artificial intelligence: an umbrella review of systematic reviews. J Dent. 2024 Jul;146:105056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105056 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105056
Anuwongnukroh N, Dechkunakorn S, Damrongsri S, Nilwarat C, Pudpong N, Radomsutthisarn W, et al. Assessment of the reliability of automatic cephalometric analysis software. Int J Mech Eng Robot Res. 2017;6(6):61–5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18178/ijmerr.7.1.61-65
Meric P, Naoumova J. Web-based fully automated cephalometric analysis: comparisons between app-aided, computerized, and manual tracings. Turk J Orthod. 2020 Sep;33(3):142–9. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19072 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
Mahto RK, Kafle D, Giri A, Luintel S, Karki A. Evaluation of fully automated cephalometric measurements obtained from web-based artificial intelligence–driven platform. BMC Oral Health. 2022 Dec;22(1):132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02175-2. PMID: 36531291 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02170-w
Yassir YA, Salman AR, Nabbat SA. The accuracy and reliability of WebCeph for cephalometric analysis. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2022 Feb;17(1):57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2021.10.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2021.08.010
Duran GS, Gökmen Ş, Topsakal KG, Görgülü S. Evaluation of the accuracy of fully automatic cephalometric analysis software with an artificial intelligence algorithm. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2023 Aug;26(3):481–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12644. PMID: 37409109 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12633
Khattri N, Nasim NN, S V, N T, J N. Comparison of reliability and accuracy of AI-based fully automated cephalometric tracing software with computer-aided semi-automatic cephalometric software. J Dent Med Sci. 2023;22(1):26–33
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 ayesha Iftikhar, saman zeb, sidra israr
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
