Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
How do web-based AI, desktop-based manual, and mobile-based manual cephalometric platforms compare with conventional manual tracing in terms of accuracy, reliability, clinical acceptability, and efficiency?
0
Zitationen
4
Autoren
2026
Jahr
Abstract
To compare different cephalometric platforms with conventional manual tracing for diagnostic performance; Outcome: Web-based AI systems provide clinically acceptable accuracy and reliability with the highest time efficiency. To evaluate digital manual analysis accuracy; Outcome: Desktop-based software shows accuracy and reliability comparable to manual tracing with moderate gains in efficiency. To assess portable cephalometric tools; Outcome: Mobile-based apps yield reliable, clinically acceptable results with faster and more convenient analysis. To establish a reference standard; Outcome: Conventional manual tracing remains accurate but is time-consuming and highly operator-dependent.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success.
1986 · 3.692 Zit.
The Gingival Index, the Plaque Index and the Retention Index Systems
1967 · 3.659 Zit.
The burden of oral disease: challenges to improving oral health in the 21st century.
2005 · 3.579 Zit.
Staging and grading of periodontitis: Framework and proposal of a new classification and case definition
2018 · 3.109 Zit.
Periodontitis: Consensus report of workgroup 2 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐Implant Diseases and Conditions
2018 · 3.102 Zit.