Cephalometric Tracing: Comparing Artificial Intelligence and Augmented Intelligence on Online Platforms.

IF 2.9 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Dento maxillo facial radiology Pub Date : 2025-05-15 DOI:10.1093/dmfr/twaf045

E A Gallardo-Lopez, Lmya Moreira, M H Cruz, Nro Meneses, Scf Schumiski, Dmra Salgado, E M Crosato, C Costa

{"title":"Cephalometric Tracing: Comparing Artificial Intelligence and Augmented Intelligence on Online Platforms.","authors":"E A Gallardo-Lopez, Lmya Moreira, M H Cruz, Nro Meneses, Scf Schumiski, Dmra Salgado, E M Crosato, C Costa","doi":"10.1093/dmfr/twaf045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This research aimed to evaluate the results of cephalometric analyses obtained by AI from the RadioCef®, EasyCeph®, and WebCeph® platforms and their variability due to modifications made by the user.Methods: In this cross-sectional observational study, seventy cephalometric radiographs were analyzed using the AI of the platforms. Subsequently, four examiners with different areas of expertise and levels of experience examined each landmark, correcting its location if necessary.Results: The Pog, L1 tip, B, and Go landmarks on the RadioCef®; Pn, Me, Pog, U1 tip, and UL on the EasyCeph®; and Pog, Me, and B on the WebCeph® showed a modification equal to or greater than 90%. More experienced examiners modified a greater number of landmarks. The repeated measures ANOVA test reported statistically significant differences concerning the SNA, SNB, ANB, SN-GoGn, FMIA, FMA, and IMPA angles (p < 0.05) for fully automated and semi-automated analyses. ICC values reported intra-observer agreement levels from poor (ICC = 0.27) to perfect (ICC = 1), and inter-observer agreement showed good to excellent reliability (ICC = 0.88 to 0.99).Conclusions: Fully automated cephalometric analysis presents variations according to modifications made by the examiners. This represents a challenge to the knowledge of the orthodontist, influencing the diagnosis and treatment planning. Therefore, the use of augmented intelligence in cephalometric analysis is still suggested based on the results obtained for each platform.","PeriodicalId":11261,"journal":{"name":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dmfr/twaf045","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This research aimed to evaluate the results of cephalometric analyses obtained by AI from the RadioCef®, EasyCeph®, and WebCeph® platforms and their variability due to modifications made by the user.

Methods: In this cross-sectional observational study, seventy cephalometric radiographs were analyzed using the AI of the platforms. Subsequently, four examiners with different areas of expertise and levels of experience examined each landmark, correcting its location if necessary.

Results: The Pog, L1 tip, B, and Go landmarks on the RadioCef®; Pn, Me, Pog, U1 tip, and UL on the EasyCeph®; and Pog, Me, and B on the WebCeph® showed a modification equal to or greater than 90%. More experienced examiners modified a greater number of landmarks. The repeated measures ANOVA test reported statistically significant differences concerning the SNA, SNB, ANB, SN-GoGn, FMIA, FMA, and IMPA angles (p < 0.05) for fully automated and semi-automated analyses. ICC values reported intra-observer agreement levels from poor (ICC = 0.27) to perfect (ICC = 1), and inter-observer agreement showed good to excellent reliability (ICC = 0.88 to 0.99).

Conclusions: Fully automated cephalometric analysis presents variations according to modifications made by the examiners. This represents a challenge to the knowledge of the orthodontist, influencing the diagnosis and treatment planning. Therefore, the use of augmented intelligence in cephalometric analysis is still suggested based on the results obtained for each platform.

查看原文本刊更多论文

头颅测量追踪：在线平台上人工智能和增强智能的比较。

目的：本研究旨在评估人工智能从RadioCef®、EasyCeph®和WebCeph®平台获得的头颅测量分析结果及其因用户修改而产生的变异性。方法：在本横断面观察研究中，使用平台人工智能对70张头颅x线片进行分析。随后，四名具有不同专业知识领域和经验水平的审查员检查了每个地标，并在必要时纠正其位置。结果：RadioCef®上的Pog、L1尖端、B和Go标记；EasyCeph®上的Pn、Me、Pog、U1尖端和UL；在WebCeph®上，Pog、Me和B的修饰等于或大于90%。更有经验的审查员修改了更多的地标。重复测量方差分析报告了SNA、SNB、ANB、SN-GoGn、FMIA、FMA和IMPA角度的统计学差异(p)。结论：全自动头颅测量分析显示，根据审核员的修改，出现了变化。这对正畸医生的知识构成了挑战，影响了诊断和治疗计划。因此，根据每个平台获得的结果，仍然建议在头测分析中使用增强智能。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Dento maxillo facial radiology 医学-核医学

CiteScore

5.60

自引率

9.10%

发文量

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (DMFR) is the journal of the International Association of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (IADMFR) and covers the closely related fields of oral radiology and head and neck imaging. Established in 1972, DMFR is a key resource keeping dentists, radiologists and clinicians and scientists with an interest in Head and Neck imaging abreast of important research and developments in oral and maxillofacial radiology. The DMFR editorial board features a panel of international experts including Editor-in-Chief Professor Ralf Schulze. Our editorial board provide their expertise and guidance in shaping the content and direction of the journal. Quick Facts: - 2015 Impact Factor - 1.919 - Receipt to first decision - average of 3 weeks - Acceptance to online publication - average of 3 weeks - Open access option - ISSN: 0250-832X - eISSN: 1476-542X