Sabahattin Bor, Saadet Çınarsoy Ciğerim, Seda Kotan
{"title":"人工智能辅助头颅测量分析与正畸医师进行的数字追踪分析的比较。","authors":"Sabahattin Bor, Saadet Çınarsoy Ciğerim, Seda Kotan","doi":"10.1186/s40510-024-00539-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Material and method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":56071,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Orthodontics","volume":"25 1","pages":"41"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491421/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of AI-assisted cephalometric analysis and orthodontist-performed digital tracing analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Sabahattin Bor, Saadet Çınarsoy Ciğerim, Seda Kotan\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40510-024-00539-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Material and method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56071,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Progress in Orthodontics\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"41\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491421/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Progress in Orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-024-00539-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-024-00539-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究背景本研究旨在比较和评估三种人工智能辅助头颅测量分析平台--CephX、WeDoCeph 和 WebCeph,以及使用 NemoCeph 软件的传统数字描记方法:符合纳入标准的 1500 张头颅侧位片被分为 I 级、II 级和 III 级。随后,从每个等级中随机抽取 40 名患者。这些被选中的片子被上传到 3 个人工智能辅助头颅测量分析平台,在没有任何人工干预的情况下进行分析。一位正畸医生也使用 NemoCeph 程序对相同的胶片进行了分析:结果显示,在比较四种头颅测量分析方法(WebCeph、WeDoCeph、CephX 和 NemoCeph)时,I、II 和 III 级患者的关键角度测量值(ANB、FMA、IMPA 和 NLA)存在明显差异。值得注意的是,ANB(PWebCeph、WeDoCeph 和 CephX 等人工智能辅助头颅测量分析平台与传统的手动数字描记相比,在准确性和可靠性方面存在显著差异,特别是在角度和线性测量方面。这些结果强调了在正畸诊断和治疗计划中精心选择和评估分析方法的重要性。
Comparison of AI-assisted cephalometric analysis and orthodontist-performed digital tracing analysis.
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.
期刊介绍:
Progress in Orthodontics is a fully open access, international journal owned by the Italian Society of Orthodontics and published under the brand SpringerOpen. The Society is currently covering all publication costs so there are no article processing charges for authors.
It is a premier journal of international scope that fosters orthodontic research, including both basic research and development of innovative clinical techniques, with an emphasis on the following areas:
• Mechanisms to improve orthodontics
• Clinical studies and control animal studies
• Orthodontics and genetics, genomics
• Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) control clinical trials
• Efficacy of orthodontic appliances and animal models
• Systematic reviews and meta analyses
• Mechanisms to speed orthodontic treatment
Progress in Orthodontics will consider for publication only meritorious and original contributions. These may be:
• Original articles reporting the findings of clinical trials, clinically relevant basic scientific investigations, or novel therapeutic or diagnostic systems
• Review articles on current topics
• Articles on novel techniques and clinical tools
• Articles of contemporary interest