An observational study in Malocclusion, Angle Class I, Malocclusion, Angle Class II and Malocclusion, Angle Class III, sponsored by Ben Hafeed Dental Center. Completed at 1 site in Yemen. Open to participants aged 12 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-07-08.
Sponsored by Ben Hafeed Dental Center · Observational
This study compared an artificial intelligence-assisted orthodontic diagnostic workflow using WebCeph with a conventional clinician-based workflow.
The study included 120 new orthodontic patients treated at Ben Hafeed Dental Center in Sana'a, Yemen, between March 2024 and March 2026. For each participant, the researchers prepared a de-identified package of routine pretreatment records, including clinical findings, extraoral and intraoral photographs, panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs, and dental models or digital scans.
The same case package was independently assessed using both the artificial intelligence-assisted and conventional workflows. An independent panel of five expert orthodontists reviewed the cases and established the reference standard.
The main outcome was agreement with the expert panel for skeletal sagittal classification as Class I, Class II, or Class III. Other outcomes included orthodontic treatment-need grades, premolar extraction decisions, anchorage planning, appliance selection, and the time required to complete each diagnostic workflow.
Participation did not alter the routine orthodontic care provided to patients, and final clinical decisions remained the responsibility of the treating orthodontist.
This was a prospective paired diagnostic-agreement study conducted at Ben Hafeed Dental Center, Sana'a, Yemen, from March 2024 to March 2026.
A total of 120 eligible new orthodontic patients were included. Each participant contributed one standardized, de-identified pretreatment case package. Every case was evaluated using both an artificial intelligence-assisted workflow and a conventional clinician-based workflow, allowing direct within-case comparison.
The artificial intelligence-assisted workflow used WebCeph Premium, software version 2.0.3 (AssembleCircle Corp., Seongnam-si, Republic of Korea). The lateral cephalometric radiograph was uploaded to the software for automated anatomical landmark identification and generation of angular and linear cephalometric measurements. The original automated landmarks and measurements were recorded without manual correction. The reviewer interpreted the automated findings together with the remaining standardized pretreatment records and entered the required diagnostic and treatment-planning decisions.
For the conventional workflow, two calibrated orthodontists independently reviewed each case using routine clinical, photographic, radiographic, cephalometric, and dental-model assessment. Conventional cephalometric evaluation was performed using manual landmark identification through a local Dolphin Imaging-based workflow. When the two conventional orthodontists disagreed on an endpoint, a third calibrated orthodontist adjudicated the disputed decision.
The reference standard was established by an independent panel of five experienced orthodontists. Each expert independently reviewed the de-identified cases while blinded to the artificial intelligence-assisted and conventional workflow results. Reference decisions were established through majority agreement, with additional review and structured adjudication when required.
The primary endpoint was skeletal sagittal classification, categorized as Class I, Class II, or Class III. Secondary endpoints included the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need Dental Health Component, the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need Aesthetic Component, premolar extraction decision, anchorage-plan category, and primary appliance modality. Workflow duration was measured from the beginning of case assessment until all required decisions had been entered.
The study included 71 females and 49 males. The mean participant age was 20.3 years, with a standard deviation of 3.9 years and a range of 14 to 33 years.
The protocol was approved by the Yemen Dental Association under approval number 207. Written informed consent was obtained from adult participants. For minors, written parental or legal-guardian permission and participant assent were obtained.
35 studies on the registry are indexed under Malocclusion, Angle Class I; 10 are open to participants now.
Browse Malocclusion, Angle Class I studies →This is the only study on the registry with Ben Hafeed Dental Center as lead sponsor.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
The study population consisted of new orthodontic patients presenting for assessment at Ben Hafeed Dental Center in Sana'a, Yemen, from March 2024 to March 2026. Eligible participants were aged 12 years or older and had complete, good-quality routine pretreatment orthodontic records. Each enrolled participant contributed one standardized, de-identified case package that was assessed using both the AI-assisted and conventional diagnostic workflows.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Exact Agreement With the Expert Panel for Skeletal Sagittal Classification
Proportion of participant cases in which the skeletal sagittal classification assigned by each diagnostic workflow exactly agreed with the expert-panel reference classification. Classification was categorized as Class I, Class II, or Class III. Agreement was reported separately for the AI-assisted and conventional workflows using percentage agreement and unweighted Cohen's kappa with 95% confidence intervals. Paired classification accuracy was compared using McNemar's test.
Time frame: At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Agreement With the Expert Panel for IOTN Dental Health Component Grade
Agreement between each workflow and the expert-panel reference grade for the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need Dental Health Component, graded from 1 to 5. Outcomes included exact agreement, agreement within one grade, weighted Cohen's kappa with 95% confidence intervals, and absolute grade deviation.
Time frame: At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Agreement With the Expert Panel for IOTN Aesthetic Component Grade
Agreement between each workflow and the expert-panel reference grade for the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need Aesthetic Component, graded from 1 to 10. Outcomes included exact agreement, agreement within one grade, weighted Cohen's kappa with 95% confidence intervals, and absolute grade deviation.
Time frame: At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Diagnostic Accuracy for the Premolar Extraction Decision
Accuracy of each workflow in classifying whether premolar extraction was indicated, using the expert-panel decision as the reference standard. Outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, overall accuracy, and unweighted Cohen's kappa with 95% confidence intervals.
Time frame: At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Agreement With the Expert Panel for Anchorage-Plan Category
Proportion of participant cases in which the anchorage-plan category assigned by each workflow agreed with the expert-panel reference decision. Categories were conventional anchorage, reinforced anchorage, or skeletal anchorage. Agreement was evaluated using percentage agreement and unweighted Cohen's kappa.
Time frame: At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Agreement With the Expert Panel for Primary Appliance Modality
Proportion of participant cases in which the primary appliance modality selected by each workflow agreed with the expert-panel reference decision. Categories were fixed appliance, clear aligner, or functional appliance. Agreement was evaluated using percentage agreement and unweighted Cohen's kappa.
Time frame: At baseline pretreatment assessment; one case evaluation per workflow, completed within 1 day.
Time Required to Complete the Diagnostic and Treatment-Planning Workflow
Total time in minutes from opening the standardized case package until all required diagnostic and treatment-planning decisions were entered. For the conventional workflow, the mean of the two initial orthodontists' assessment times was used. Third-rater adjudication time was excluded. The within-case paired difference between workflows was calculated.
Time frame: During the baseline diagnostic assessment; measured continuously from case opening to completion, within 1 day.
Ran from Mar 2024 to primary completion in Mar 2026, 24 months.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.