Search

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.