Skip to main content
. 2021 May 31;22:14. doi: 10.1186/s40510-021-00358-4

Table 2.

Comparison of the cephalometric measurements between conventional and artificial intelligence methods

Conventional AI Difference Significance (p value)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Skeletal measurement
 Saddle angle (°) 124.6 5.0 123.4 4.7 1.2 2.0 0.002a
 Articular angle (°) 149.3 6.1 149.9 5.3 −0.6 3.5 0.316
 Gonion angle (°) 121.4 5.8 121.9 7.6 −0.5 4.1 0.482
 Sum 395.3 6.3 395.2 6.4 0.1 2.7 0.894
 Ant. cranial base (mm) 69.5 3.7 68.4 4.5 1.1 2.9 0.228
 Post. cranial base (mm) 38.6 4.6 37.1 5.4 1.4 3.6 0.119
 Ramus height (mm) 50.4 6.4 49.8 6.7 0.7 3.4 0.257
 SNA (°) 80.7 3.8 81.2 3.8 −0.5 1.8 0.114
 SNB (°) 77.6 4.5 78.0 4.8 −0.4 1.5 0.143
 ANB (°) 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.3 −0.1 1.4 0.618
 Facial angle (Down’s) 87.2 3.2 88.0 3.8 −0.8 1.9 0.071
 Post.FH/Ant.FH 66.2 5.1 66.1 4.8 0.2 2.5 0.661
 Mn. plane angle (°) 35.3 6.3 35.6 6.2 −0.3 2.8 0.511
 FMA (°) 26.3 5.7 25.7 6.0 0.6 2.8 0.198
 Palatal plane angle (°) 24.6 5.9 24.9 5.7 −0.3 1.7 0.513
Dental measurement
 Wits appraisal −1.3 7.2 −2.5 4.7 1.2 6.7 0.305
 FMIA (°) 58.9 8.5 60.0 8.5 −1.1 4.4 0.138
 IMPA (°) 95.0 8.3 93.9 7.4 1.1 3.9 0.111
 Mx 1 to SN (°) 107.0 11.0 107.6 8.8 −0.6 5.1 0.523
 Interincisal angle (°) 122.9 14.8 122.9 11.8 0.1 6.5 0.988
 Mx1 to NA (°) 26.3 9.6 26.4 7.2 −0.1 4.6 0.910
 Mx1 to NA (mm) 7.5 3.6 5.6 2.6 1.8 2.3 0.001a
 Mn1 to NB (°) 27.7 7.4 27.6 6.9 0.1 3.6 0.922
 Mn1 to NB (mm) 8.3 3.3 6.1 2.8 2.1 1.4 0.000a
Soft tissue measurement
 Esthetic line to upper lip (mm) 0.6 3.2 0.6 2.9 0.0 1.1 0.899
 Esthetic line to lower lip (mm) 1.6 3.4 1.7 3.1 0.0 1.5 0.884

SD Standard deviation

aThe results of paired t test