Smartphone and computer cephalometric analysis: A trueness and precision study

Abstract

Objectives: Performing digital cephalometric analysis on apps is a convenient feature of handheld devices. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of the OneCeph cephalometric tracing app on a smartphone and computer. Methods: 34 lateral cephalograms were traced in two sessions using three methods: OneCeph on a smartphone, OneCeph on a computer, and NemoCeph on a computer as the reference. For trueness analysis, the measurements were compared between each test method and the reference. For precision analysis, the measurements were compared between sessions. Results: Regarding trueness analysis, significant differences were found between OneCeph and NemoCeph for ANB (smartphone, -0.3±0.68; computer, -0.3±0.52), OL/SN (smartphone, -1.1±2.68; computer -2.0±2.98), and GoGn/SN (smartphone, -0.5±1.27; computer, -0.8±1.56). OneCeph reproducibility was high for all cephalometric variables except OL/SN, both on the smartphone and the computer (ICC [95%CI]: 0.888 [0.773-0.944] and 0.842 [0.583-0.931], respectively). Repeatability was high for all cephalometric variables except OL/SN and UINA on the smartphone (ICC [95%CI]: 0.889 [0.730-0.950] and 0.831 [0.687-0.912], respectively). Tracing time was significantly higher for both OneCeph methods. Conclusions: OneCeph demonstrated adequate accuracy and efficiency on both interfaces. Clinical judgment is advised when interpreting the measurement output of handheld devices, which may provide a higher frequency of gross landmark identification errors.

Informatic tools for diagnosis in dentistry. A compilation review

“…As for the authors, only O’Toole ( 22, 23 ) matches 2 (5.1%) articles as first author. The years of publication of the articles ranged from 2015 to 2023, with 2022 predominating ( 17, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ) with 10 (25.6%) reports.…”

“…Table 3 shows the relationship of computer tools described by the articles with the country where they were developed, year of creation, programming language, platforms on which they can be used, the specialty with which they are related, whether they were validated, are open source, are free and the payment model to which they are subject. “CephNinja”, (46, 53) “Diagnocat”, ( 21, 50 ) “OneCeph” ( 24, 46 ) y “WearCompare” ( 22, 23 ) were the recurrent tools and that 2 (5.1%) articles each described their use. Only of 6 ( 18, 26, 31, 36, 41, 48 ) (15.4%) validation processes are not referred to in the articles, the rest were validated.…”

“…As for the authors, only O'Toole (22,23) matches 2 (5.1%) articles as first author. The years of publication of the articles ranged from 2015 to 2023, with 2022 predominating (17,18,21,24,25,26,27,28,29,30) with 10 (25.6%) reports. Table 3 shows the relationship of computer tools described by the articles with the country where they were developed, year of creation, programming language, platforms on which they can be used, the specialty with which they are related, whether they were validated, are open source, are free and the payment model to which they are subject.…”

“…Among the tools for cephalometric analysis and diagnosis, Cephalopoint (29) and OneCeph (24, 46) offer digital cephalometric analysis, facilitating the diagnosis and planning of orthodontic treatments. CephNinja (46, 53) allows digital cephalometric plotting on mobile devices, further streamlining the process.…”