Retrospective study assessed diagnostic accuracy between manual and AI-assisted digital tracing methods in orthodontics, suggesting both methods are interchangeable.
Aim: This study aimed to statistically evaluate and compare the accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of manual versus artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted digital cephalometric tracing using Steiner's and Down's analyses in orthodontic diagnostics. Materials and methods: A retrospective study was conducted using 20 lateral cephalograms obtained using the NewTom GiANO HR cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) system (Quantitative Radiology, Verona, Italy). Manual tracings were performed on acetate sheets, while digital analysis employed the AudaxCeph® software (Audax d.o.o., Ljubljana, Slovenia) with automated landmark detection. Measurements were analysed using independent sample t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, with significance set at p ≤ 0.05. Results: Statistical analysis showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) between manual and digital cephalometric measurements across key parameters. Minor variations were within clinically acceptable limits, confirming that both methods are consistent and interchangeable for orthodontic diagnostics. Conclusion: AI-assisted digital cephalometric tracing is as accurate and reliable as manual methods, offering enhanced efficiency and consistency. These findings support its integration into routine orthodontic diagnostics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pandey et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: