INTRODUCTION: Cephalometric analysis, a cornerstone of orthodontics and craniofacial surgery, traditionally involves manual radiograph tracing, a time-consuming and potentially variable process. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a potential alternative for faster, more consistent analysis. This study compared AI-driven and manual cephalometric methods to assess agreement and identify discrepancies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This quantitative, comparative cross-sectional study was conducted in a private practice in Peshawar, Pakistan (August–November 2024), including 29 orthodontic patients who met specific criteria (good-quality cephalograms and absence of facial clefts/intra-oral appliances). Cephalometric radiographs were analyzed by two experienced dentists using manual tracing and by AI software (Audaxceph 6.0.50.3887). Five key angular measurements (SNA, SNB, ANB, FMA, and SN-Mp), used in Steiner’s and Tweed’s analyses, were compared. Inter-rater reliability for the manual tracings was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: Excellent inter-rater reliability was observed for manual tracings (ICCs > 0.90). Paired t-tests revealed no significant differences between manual and AI methods for SNA, SNB, ANB, and FMA. However, a statistically significant difference (p = 0.006) was found for SN-Mp. CONCLUSIONS: This study, comparing manual and AI-driven cephalometric analysis, found strong agreement for most key measurements (SNA, SNB, ANB, and FMA), suggesting AI’s potential to enhance clinical efficiency. The significant difference in SN-Mp, however, emphasizes the need for continued clinical oversight. A combined approach, integrating AI with clinical expertise, is recommended for optimal diagnostic accuracy and treatment planning.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.