Evaluation of the accuracy and reliability of WebCeph – An artificial intelligence-based online software
Open Access
- 9 June 2022
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Scientific Scholar in APOS Trends in Orthodontics
- Vol. 12 (4), 271-276
- https://doi.org/10.25259/apos_138_2021
Abstract
Objectives: Landmark identification is of utmost importance in cephalometric analysis but it turns out to be the main source of error. With modern inventions in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), it becomes essential to assess the reliability of computer-automated programs. A greater deal of time can be conserved with fully automated programs such as WebCeph, which uses an AI-based algorithm that performs automated and immediate cephalometric analysis. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and duration of tracing cephalometric radiographs with WebCeph, an AI-based software in comparison to digital tracing with FACAD and manual tracing. The null hypothesis proposed is that there is no statistically significant difference among the three methods with regard to accuracy of cephalometric analysis. Material and Methods: Pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 25 patients (14 males and 11 females, mean age of 18 ± 3.2 years) were selected randomly from the dental information archiving software of Saveetha University, Department of Orthodontics, Chennai. Composite analysis with skeletal, dental and soft-tissue parameters was selected and cephalometric analysis was done with all three methods – Manual tracing (Group 1), digital tracing using FACAD (Group 2), and fully automated AI-based software WebCeph (Group 3). The timing for each method of analysis was calculated using a stopwatch in seconds. Values were tabulated in an Excel sheet and statistical analysis including one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test were performed. Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the three methods for cephalometric analysis, P > 0.05. The time taken for measurement using the three different methods was the least while using WebCeph (30.2 ± 6.4 s) and the maximum while manual tracing (472 ± 40.4 s). Conclusion: WebCeph is a reliable, faster and practical tool for analyzing cephalometric analysis in comparison to digital tracing using FACAD and manual tracing.Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Orthodontic apps for smartphonesJournal of Orthodontics, 2013
- The Impact of Mobile Handheld Technology on Hospital Physicians' Work Practices and Patient Care: A Systematic ReviewJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2009
- Comparison of Hand-Traced and Computer-Based Cephalometric SuperimpositionsAngle Orthodontist, 2009
- A comparison of manual traced images and corresponding scanned radiographs digitally tracedEuropean Journal of Orthodontics, 2009
- Reliability of cranial base measurements on lateral skull radiographsOrthodontics & Craniofacial Research, 2008
- An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracingsEuropean Journal of Orthodontics, 2007
- Assessment of an automated cephalometric analysis systemEuropean Journal of Orthodontics, 1996
- Reliability of landmark recording on film and digital lateral cephalogramsEuropean Journal of Orthodontics, 1993
- The reliability of head film measurements: 3. Tracing superimpositionAmerican Journal of Orthodontics, 1976
- The reliability of head film measurements: 1. Landmark identificationAmerican Journal of Orthodontics, 1971