Accuracy of web-based automated versus digital manual cephalometric landmark identification.
Artificial intelligence
Cephalometric
Cephio
Webceph
Journal
Clinical oral investigations
ISSN: 1436-3771
Titre abrégé: Clin Oral Investig
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9707115
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2024
01 Nov 2024
Historique:
received:
27
03
2024
accepted:
27
10
2024
medline:
1
11
2024
pubmed:
1
11
2024
entrez:
1
11
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of two web-based automated cephalometric landmark identification and analysis programs. Manual landmark identification using Dolphin Imaging software was used as reference. 105 cephalograms were selected and divided into three groups of 35 subjects each, Class I, II and III. Radiographs were traced using Dolphin imaging software. WebCeph™ (South Korea) and Cephio™ (Poland) were used for the automated cephalometric analysis. Bland-Altman limits of agreement and the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were calculated. Kruskal Wallis test was used to compare the accuracy of WebCeph™ and Cephio™ measurements between the three groups. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the absolute difference between cephalometric measurements obtained using WebCeph™ and Cephio™. The mean difference (MD) between AI and manually-derived measurements was less than 1 mm/degree and ranged from 0.01 to 0.8 except for upper lip protrusion (MD 1.35°), nasolabial angle (MD 5.01°), SN-GoGn (MD 1.41°), Ramus height (MD 1.46°), and IMPA (MD 1.94°). The mean CCC was 0.91 (range 0.60 to 0.96). No statistically significant differences were found between the three malocclusion groups for most of the measurements (P > 0.05). For most of the measurements, automated cephalometric measurements were clinically acceptable. Few differences were found between Webceph™ and Cephio™ for most measurements. Measurements including SNA, SN-PP, IMPA as well as soft tissue measurements require extra consideration and manual adjustment of respective landmarks for higher precision and improved efficiency.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39482549
doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-06021-6
pii: 10.1007/s00784-024-06021-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
621Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Silva TP, Hughes MM, Menezes LS, de Melo MFB, Freitas PHL, Takeshita WM (2022) <ArticleTitle Language=“En”>Artificial intelligence- based cephalometric landmark annotation and measurements according to Arnett’s analysis: can we trust a bot to do that? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20200548
doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20200548
pubmed: 36416666
pmcid: 9793454
Baumrind S, Frantz RC The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod 60:505–517
Kamath M, Arun AV (2016) Comparison of cephalometric readings between manual tracing and digital software tracing: A pilot study. Int J Orthodontic Rehabilitation 7:135–138
doi: 10.4103/2349-5243.197460
Chen YJ, Chen SK, Huang HW, Yao CC, Chang HF (2004) Reliability of landmark identification in cephalometric radiography acquired by a storage phosphor imaging system. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 33:301–306
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/85147715
Al-Dabbas HM, Azeez RA, Ali AE (2024) Two Proposed Models for Face Recognition: Achieving High Accuracy and Speed with Artificial Intelligence. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research. ;14(2):13706-13
Moon JH, Hwang HW, Yu Y, Kim MG, Donatelli RE, Lee SJ (2020) How much deep learning is enough for automatic identification to be reliable? Angle Orthod 90(6):823–830
doi: 10.2319/021920-116.1
pubmed: 33378507
pmcid: 8028421
Goutham N, Neeharika S, Vedavathi HK, Ramegowda S, Shailaja AM (2021) Handy Gadget for Cephalometric Analysis: A Systematic Review. J Indian Orthodontic Soc 55(1):64–71
doi: 10.1177/0301574220976239
El-Dawlatly M, Attia KH, Abdelghaffar AY, Mostafa YA, Abd El-Ghafour M (2023) Preciseness of artificial intelligence for lateral cephalometric measurements. J Orofac Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-023-00459-1 . Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36894679
Hwang HW, Moon JH, Kim MG, Donatelli RE, Lee SJ (2021) Evaluation of automated cephalometric analysis based on the latest deep learning method. Angle Orthod 91:329–335
doi: 10.2319/021220-100.1
pubmed: 33434275
pmcid: 8084461
Kunz F, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Zeman F, Boldt J (2020) Artificial intelligence in orthodontics. J Orofac Orthop 81:52–68
doi: 10.1007/s00056-019-00203-8
pubmed: 31853586
Kim MJ, Liu Y, Oh SH, Ahn HW, Kim SH, Nelson G (2021) Evaluation of a multi-stage convolutional neural network based fully automated landmark identification system using cone-beam computed tomography synthesized posteroanterior cephalometric images. Korean J Orthod 51:77–85
doi: 10.4041/kjod.2021.51.2.77
pubmed: 33678623
pmcid: 7940808
Junaid N, Khan N, Ahmed N, Abbasi MS, Das G, Maqsood A, Ahmed AR, Marya A, Alam MK, Heboyan A (2022) Development, Application, and Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Cephalometric Landmark Identification and Diagnosis: A Systematic Review. Healthc (Ba Healthc (Basel) 10(12):2454
Jeon S, Lee KC (2021) Comparison of cephalometric measurements between conventional and automatic cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural network. Prog Orthod 22(1):14
doi: 10.1186/s40510-021-00358-4
pubmed: 34056670
pmcid: 8165048
Wen J, Liu S, Ye X, Xie X, Li J, Li H et al (2017) Comparative study of cephalometric measurements using 3 imaging modalities. J Am Dent Assoc 148(12):913–921
doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.07.030
pubmed: 29042006
Steiner CC (1953) Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 39(10):729–755
doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(53)90082-7
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical method for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet i:307–310
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun T (2007) An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod 29:105–108
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjl065
pubmed: 17290023
Pandis N (2021) Why using a paired t test to assess agreement is problematic? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 160(5):767–768
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.07.001
Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yao JC, Chang HF (2004) The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod 74(2):155–161
pubmed: 15132440
Mahto RK, Kafle D, Giri A et al (2022) Evaluation of fully automated cephalometric measurements obtained from web-based artificial intelligence driven platform. BMC Oral Health 22:132
doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02170-w
pubmed: 35440037
pmcid: 9020017
Çoban G, Öztürk T, Hashimli N, Yağcı A (2022) Comparison between cephalometric measurements using digital manual and web-based artificial intelligence cephalometric tracing software. Dent Press J Orthod 27(4):e222112
doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.27.4.e222112.oar