CURRENT PROSPECTIVES ON CEPHALOMETRIC PARAMETERS USED IN SKELETAL DISCREPANCY ASSESSMENT

Author

Ajay Pratap Singh, Prof. Prajita Jivan Tayade, Sayli Anil Tekade, Dipika Jagdish Joshi, Monali Moreshwar Sawarbandhe, Dr. Mukesh Kumar Meena


Abstract

 Background

Accurate identification and characterization of skeletal discrepancies are fundamental to orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning, and assessment of treatment outcomes. Conventional cephalometric parameters, particularly the ANB angle and Wits appraisal, have been extensively used to evaluate anteroposterior skeletal relationships. However, their interpretation may be influenced by cranial-base morphology, jaw rotation, growth-related changes, occlusal-plane inclination, and variability in anatomical landmark identification. These limitations have encouraged the development and investigation of alternative cephalometric parameters and advanced imaging approaches.


Keywords

Cephalometrics, Cephalometric analysis, Skeletal discrepancy, Skeletal parameters, Maxillomandibular relationship



Full Text:

Download Paper PDF


References


Vancouver style; recent literature prioritized (2020–2026).

  1. Khanagar SB, Al-Ehaideb A, Maganur PC, Vishwanathaiah S, Patil S, Naik S, et al. Scope and performance of artificial intelligence technology in orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning, and clinical decision-making—a systematic review. J Dent Sci. 2021;16(1):482-492. doi:10.1016/j.jds.2020.05.022.
  2. Jeon S, Lee KC. Comparison of cephalometric measurements between conventional and automatic cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural network. Prog Orthod. 2021;22(1):14. doi:10.1186/s40510-021-00358-4.
  3. Bulatova G, Kusnoto B, Grace V, Tsay TP, Avenetti DM, Sanchez FJC. Assessment of automatic cephalometric landmark identification using artificial intelligence. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021;24 Suppl 2:37-42. doi:10.1111/ocr.12542.
  4. Alshayea EI, Almoammar K, Feteih RM, Masoud IM, Albarakati SF. Skeleto-dental features among a sample of Saudi female children compared to North American standards: a cephalometric study. Natl J Clin Pract. 2021;24(5):692-704. doi:10.4103/njcp.njcp_240_20.
  5. Tanimoto K, et al. Development of novel artificial intelligence systems to predict facial morphology after orthognathic surgery and orthodontic treatment in Japanese patients. Sci Rep. 2021.
  6. Paddenberg E, Proff P, Kirschneck C. Floating norms for individualising the ANB angle and the WITS appraisal in orthodontic cephalometric analysis based on guiding variables. J Orofac Orthop. 2023;84(1):10-18. doi:10.1007/s00056-021-00322-1.
  7. Subramanian AK, Chen Y, Almalki A, Sivamurthy G, Kafle D. Cephalometric analysis in orthodontics using artificial intelligence—a comprehensive review. Biomed Res Int. 2022;2022:1880113. doi:10.1155/2022/1880113.
  8. Junaid N, et al. Development, application, and performance of artificial intelligence in cephalometric landmark identification and diagnosis: a systematic review. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(12):2454. doi:10.3390/healthcare10122454.
  9. Chaudhary A, Giri J, Gyawali R, Pokharel PR. A retrospective study comparing nose, lip, and chin morphology in Class I, Class II, and Class III skeletal relationships: a cephalometric study. Int J Dent. 2022;2022:2252746. doi:10.1155/2022/2252746.
  10. Khan EB, et al. Comparative assessment of various cephalometric facial planes with intercanine width in orthodontic patients. J Orthod Sci. 2022;11:22. doi:10.4103/jos.jos_149_21.
  11. Ali SM, Saloom HF, Tawfeeq MA. Cephalometric variables prediction from lateral photographs between different skeletal patterns using regression artificial neural networks. Turk J Orthod. 2022;35(2):101-111. doi:10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2022.21087.
  12. Lombardo L, Cervinara F, Guiducci D, Spedicato GA, Siciliani G. Cephalometric analysis of dental and skeletal effects of Carriere Motion 3D appliance for Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022;161(5):659-665. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.12.024.
  13. Booij JW, Serafin M, Fastuca R, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Caprioglio A. Skeletal, dental and soft tissue cephalometric changes after orthodontic treatment of dental Class II malocclusion with maxillary first molar or first premolar extractions. J Clin Med. 2022;11(11):3170. doi:10.3390/jcm11113170.
  14. Rauniyar S, Jena S, Sahoo N, Mohanty P, Dash BP. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for automated cephalometric landmark identification: a meta-analysis previewed by a systematic review. Cureus. 2023;15(6):e40934. doi:10.7759/cureus.40934.
  15. Bao H, Zhang K, Yu C, Li H, Cao D, Shu H, et al. Evaluating the accuracy of automated cephalometric analysis based on artificial intelligence. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):191. doi:10.1186/s12903-023-02881-8.
  16. Jiang F, Guo Y, Yang C, Zhou Y, Lin Y, Cheng F, et al. Artificial intelligence system for automated landmark localization and analysis of cephalometry. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2023;52(1):20220081. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20220081.
  17. Duran GS, Gökmen Ş, Topsakal KG, Görgülü S. Evaluation of the accuracy of fully automatic cephalometric analysis software with artificial intelligence algorithm. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2023;26(3):481-490. doi:10.1111/ocr.12633.
  18. Ye H, Cheng Z, Ungvijanpunya N, Chen W, Cao L, Gou Y. Is automatic cephalometric software using artificial intelligence better than orthodontist experts in landmark identification? BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):467. doi:10.1186/s12903-023-03188-4.
  19. Prince STT, Srinivasan D, Duraisamy S, Kannan R, Rajaram K. Reproducibility of linear and angular cephalometric measurements obtained by an artificial-intelligence assisted software (WebCeph) in comparison with digital software (AutoCEPH) and manual tracing method. Dental Press J Orthod. 2023;28(1):e2321214. doi:10.1590/2177-6709.28.1.e2321214.oar.
  20. Lee J, Bae SR, Noh HK. Commercial artificial intelligence lateral cephalometric analysis: part 1—the possibility of replacing manual landmarking with artificial intelligence service. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2023;47(6):106-118. doi:10.22514/jocpd.2023.085.
  21. Lin L, Tang B, Cao L, Yan J, Zhao T, Hua F, et al. The knowledge, experience, and attitude on artificial intelligence-assisted cephalometric analysis: survey of orthodontists and orthodontic students. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2023;164(4):e97-e105. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2023.07.006.
  22. Zhou Y, Mao B, Zhang J, Zhou Y, Li J, Rong Q. Orthodontic craniofacial pattern diagnosis: cephalometric geometry and machine learning. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2023;61(12):3345-3361. doi:10.1007/s11517-023-02919-7.
  23. Hendrickx J, Gracea RS, Vanheers M, Winderickx N, Preda F, Shujaat S, et al. Can artificial intelligence-driven cephalometric analysis replace manual tracing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2024;46(4):cjae029. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjae029.
  24. Polizzi A, Leonardi R. Automatic cephalometric landmark identification with artificial intelligence: an umbrella review of systematic reviews. J Dent. 2024;146:105056. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105056.
  25. Raj G, Raj M, Saigo L. Accuracy of conventional versus cone-beam CT-synthesised lateral cephalograms for cephalometric analysis: a systematic review. J Orthod. 2024;51(2):160-176. doi:10.1177/14653125231178038.
  26. Narkhede S, Rao P, Sawant V, Sachdev SS, Arora S, Pawar AM, et al. Digital versus manual tracing in cephalometric analysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pers Med. 2024;14(6):566. doi:10.3390/jpm14060566.
  27. Roy P, Roy P, Koley S. Comparative assessment of various cephalometric parameters used for determining vertical skeletal dysplasia. Cureus. 2024;16(2):e55101. doi:10.7759/cureus.55101.
  28. Ito S, Mine Y, Urabe S, Yoshimi Y, Okazaki S, Sano M, et al. Prediction of a cephalometric parameter and skeletal patterns from lateral profile photographs: a retrospective comparative analysis of regression convolutional neural networks. J Clin Med. 2024;13(21):6346. doi:10.3390/jcm13216346.
  29. O'Friel K, Chapple A, Ballard R, Armbruster P. Assessing AudaxCeph's cephalometric tracing technology versus a semi-automated approach for analyzing severe Class II and Class III skeletons. Int Orthod. 2024;22(4):100926. doi:10.1016/j.ortho.2024.100926.
  30. Lin YM, Auta A, Brown J, Cure R, Ireland R. The accuracy of artificial intelligence in identifying cephalometric landmarks: a scoping review. Int Orthod. 2026;24(4):101205. doi:10.1016/j.ortho.2026.101205.
  31. Zaborowicz K, Zaborowicz M, Cieślińska K, Biedziak B. Artificial intelligence methods in cephalometric image analysis—a systematic narrative review. J Clin Med. 2026;15(5):1920. doi:10.3390/jcm15051920.
  32. Munde RA, Handa A, Mane DR, Katkar A. Comparison of Yen, Beta, Wits, K angles with ANB in assessing sagittal dysplasia: a cephalometric study. Bioinformation. 2025;21(12):4275-4279. doi:10.6026/973206300214275.
  33. Tageldin MA, Yacout YM, Eid FY, Abdel-Haffiez SH. Accuracy of cephalometric landmark identification by artificial intelligence platform versus expert orthodontist in unilateral cleft palate patients: a retrospective study. Int Orthod. 2025;23(2):100990. doi:10.1016/j.ortho.2025.100990.
  34. Lin J, Liao Z, Dai J, Wang M, Yu R, Yang H, et al. Digital and artificial intelligence-assisted cephalometric training effectively enhanced students' landmarking accuracy in preclinical orthodontic education. BMC Oral Health. 2025. doi:10.1186/s12903-025-05978-4.
  35. Midlej K, Proff P, Watted N, Iraqi FA. Applying automated artificial intelligence models on lateral cephalometric parameters to accurately classify Arab orthodontic patient patterns. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2026;12(3):e70372. doi:10.1002/cre2.70372.
  36. Yıldırım A, Cicek O, Genç YS, Erdem R. Comparative analysis of generative pre-trained transformers for text- and image-based cephalometric prompts using a novel artificial intelligence based diagnosis and treatment planning index (AIDTI). BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2026. doi:10.1186/s12911-026-03587-x.
  37. Savegnago GDO, Vizzotto MB, Delamare EL, Liedke GS. Oral radiologists and orthodontists' attitude regarding the use of artificial intelligence for cephalometric analysis. J Orofac Orthop. 2026. doi:10.1007/s00056-025-00641-7.
  38. Nguyen VA, Ha TMA, Nguyen TTH. Performance of multimodal large language models in interpreting lateral cephalometric superimpositions: a comparative observer-performance study. Int Orthod. 2026;24(4):101216. doi:10.1016/j.ortho.2026.101216.
  39. Pirayesh Z, Sohrabniya F, Ourang SAH, Mohammad-Rahimi H, Esmaeili S, Khosravani S, et al. Predicting perceived profile attractiveness from cephalometric measurements using machine learning. Int J Dent. 2026;76(4):109679. doi:10.1016/j.identj.2026.109679.
  40. Iacob AM, Verdecchia A, García-Mesa Y, Spinas E, Cobo T. Effectiveness of automated segmentation of maxillofacial structures in cone-beam computed tomography images using artificial intelligence: a systematic review. Int Orthod. 2026;24(1):101081. doi:10.1016/j.ortho.2025.101081.
  41. Ardila CM, Pineda-Vélez E, Vivares-Builes AM. Artificial intelligence models for the detection and quantification of orthodontically induced root resorption using cone-beam computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent J. 2026;14(2):79. doi:10.3390/dj14020079.
  42. Motie P, et al. Feasibility of predicting vertical cephalometric angles from panoramic radiographs using deep learning. Int Orthod. 2026;24(1):101156. doi:10.1016/j.ortho.2026.101156.
  43. Munde RA, et al. Assessing sagittal discrepancies using beta angle, ANB angle and WITS appraisal: a cephalometric study. 2025. doi:10.6026/973206300214173.
  44. Umeh OD, Chegwe S, Utomi IL. An evaluation of cephalometric predictors of anterior open bite: an assessment of dental and skeletal parameters in an orthodontic population. J Orthod Sci. 2024;13:10. doi:10.4103/jos.jos_56_23.
  45. Lundberg J, Al-Taai N, Levring Jäghagen E, Ransjö M, Sjöström M. Skeletal stability after maxillary distraction osteogenesis or conventional Le Fort I osteotomy in patients with cleft lip and palate: a superimposition-based cephalometric analysis. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024;28(2):925-934. doi:10.1007/s10006-024-01227-0.
  46. Chaudhary A, Giri J, Gyawali R, Pokharel PR. A retrospective study comparing nose, lip, and chin morphology in Class I, Class II, and Class III skeletal relationships. Int J Dent. 2022;2022:2252746. doi:10.1155/2022/2252746.
  47. Khanagar SB, et al. The impact of artificial intelligence on orthodontics: a systematic review of applications and implications. 2025. doi:10.23736/S2724-6329.24.04930-1.
  48. Yoon J, et al. Classification of maxillofacial morphology by artificial intelligence using cephalometric analysis measurements. 2023.

 

 

Share your valuable work from Social Media Buttons