Accuracy of cephalometric landmark identification on artificial intelligence-based software: a comparative study

Clinical Snapshot

Key Findings

• P Value: p < 0.05 for specified landmarks

• Effect Size: Statistically significant differences at porion, basion, gonion, and incisor apexes

• Primary Outcome: Positional accuracy of 17 cephalometric landmarks

• Nnt Or Sensitivity: AI software placed landmarks in more distal and superior positions compared to manual identification

• Confidence Interval: Not reported

Clinical Application

AI software offers rapid assessment but requires validation for clinical accuracy Relevant to Australian orthodontic practice where digital cephalometry is standard. TGA approval status of AI software unclear. RACGP guidelines emphasise evidence-based diagnostic tools Orthodontic patients requiring cephalometric analysis

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Cephalometry has long been a cornerstone of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. While traditionally performed manually, cephalometric analysis has increasingly shifted toward semi-automated or fully automated computer-based software, due to advances in technology. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate and compare the accuracy of anatomical landmarks identified manually by orthodontists using digital tools versus those identified automatically by various artificial intelligence (AI)-based cephalometric software. METHODS: A total of 25 lateral cephalometric radiographs were selected for analysis. Manual landmark identification was independently performed by two orthodontists using the digital cephalometric software NemoCeph. These were compared to the automatic landmark identifications generated by two AI-based programs: CephNinja and WebCeph™. A total of 17 anatomical landmarks, 15 hard tissue and 2 soft tissue points, were evaluated. The 17 cephalometric landmarks selected in this study are among the most commonly used and reliably identifiable reference points in the literature. To facilitate direct visual comparison, landmark positions derived from all three methods were overlaid using semi-transparent image layers. One-way ANOVA and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) tests were conducted to assess inter-method differences. The threshold for statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed at the porion, basion, gonion, and the apexes of the upper and lower incisors (p < 0.05). Compared to the manual tracings in NemoCeph, AI-based software generally placed these landmarks in more distal and superior positions. Among the AI tools, CephNinja showed greater similarity to NemoCeph for the gonion and basion points, while WebCeph™ was closer at the incisor apexes. CONCLUSION: Although AI-based cephalometric software offers rapid and reproducible assessments, certain anatomical landmarks - particularly porion, basion, gonion, and the apexes of the upper and lower incisors - demonstrate statistically significant positional discrepancies, compared to manual tracings. Clinicians should be cautious when relying exclusively on automated analyses for diagnostic or treatment planning purposes, since AI struggles with certain landmarks, due to algorithmic limitations.

References

1. 1.Şavkan, İ., Özçankaya, S. N., & Turan, Ö. N. (2026). Accuracy of cephalometric landmark identification on artificial intelligence-based software: a comparative study. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, 31(2), e2625144. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.31.2.e2625144.oar