A Comparison of Automated Tracing Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) Software and Manual Digital Tracing Software.

Abstract

Background: Various fields of dentistry have been significantly influenced by Artificial Intelligence. One of the most prominent uses of artificial intelligence in orthodontics is automated cephalometric analysis. There have been many different automated cephalometric software developed recently, and they claim to be as effective as digital cephalometric analysis.

Aim: To assess whether or not there is a statistically significant difference in time taken to establish the cephalometric analysis using three methods: Dolphin software, AI-generated cephalometric landmarks on WebCeph, and manually-modified cephalometric landmarks on WebCeph, also to assess whether or not there are statistically significant differences in the cephalometric analysis measurements between the same three methods. Methods: Thirty lateral cephalometric radiographs of patients were consecutively selected, and cephalometric analyses were done with three methods: digital tracing using Dolphin, automated tracing using WebCeph, and automated tracing using WebCeph but with landmark modification. Twenty-one measurements were obtained. The duration of each method was measured in seconds, and the results were tallied. Values were registered in a spreadsheet. Statistical analysis One-way ANOVA and The Kruskal–Wallis test were performed. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was utilised to determine the level of agreement between the measurements obtained from all three groups.

Results: There is a statistically significant difference in the tracing time between the three groups (p-value = 0.0001). On the other hand, no statistically significant difference was found between the groups when comparing lateral cephalometric tracing measurement values (P> 0.05). Moreover, a high level of agreement is evident between the measurements from each group.

Conclusions: Compared to Dolphin tracing, WebCeph cephalometric values are relatively accurate. It is economical, practical, and effective for routine orthodontic practices.