Comparison of AudaxCeph®'s fully automated cephalometric tracing technology to a semi-automated approach by human examiners.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the reliability of cephalometric landmark identification by an automated tracing software based on convolutional neural networks to human tracers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty cephalograms were traced by two board-certified orthodontists and AudaxCeph®'s artificial intelligence software. The following thirteen landmarks were identified in each tracing: Sella, Nasion, A point, B point, Porion, Menton, Pogonion, Orbitale, Gonion, Upper Central Incisor Incisal Edge (U1 Tip), Upper Central Incisor Root Apex (U1 apex), Lower Central Incisor Incisal Edge (L1 Tip), Lower Central Incisor Root Apex (L1 apex). An x-y axis was positioned in the bottom left corner of each cephalogram, and the x- and y-coordinates for the landmarks were exported into Excel. Distributions of landmarks (X, Y, radial distance) were compared using t-tests of equivalence with a 2mm equivalence bound. These compared the AI position to the two orthodontists - and the orthodontists' reliability by comparing equivalence against each other.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference between the orthodontists and AudaxCeph®'s automatic tracing software except for the x- and y-dimension of Porion and the y-dimension of L1 apex. The two orthodontists had good intra-examiner reliability with no statistical difference found when comparing them.

CONCLUSION

AudaxCeph®'s automated cephalometric tracing software is a good adjunctive tool to use when diagnosing and treatment planning orthodontic cases.