## 3 Results
### General Characteristics of the Included Studies  
Selected studies compared the quality of cephalometric analysis performed by different specialists with varying levels of experience. The study conducted by [PERSON] et al. [39] compared landmark detection and cephalometric analysis performed by an experienced specialist and a novice specialist. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [40] conducted a study comparing orthodontists, senior assistants, junior assistants, and non-orthodontist dentists. The results of both studies indicated that specialists with more experience demonstrated greater proficiency in performing cephalometric analysis. Furthermore, the accuracy of the analysis was found to be influenced by specialization, with orthodontists performing the analysis more thoroughly than non-orthodontist dentists. However, the level of orthodontists' training did not impact the consistency of the measurements [39]. An alternative to the conventional method of cephalometric analysis involves the utilization of specialized software designed for this purpose. Among the included studies, eleven focused on comparing the accuracy of cephalometric analysis between clinicians and various software programs. The software programs used in these studies include CADCAS [41], CASS [42], PANN [43], PACS [44], Screenceph [45], Ceph X [46], Onyx Ceph (version 2.5.6.) [47], CephNinja (version 4.20) [48], and NemoCeph NX 2009 [49]. In a study conducted by [PERSON] et al. [49], the last two software programs were compared with each other in terms of their accuracy. The majority of studies indicated thatanalysis performed by software was superior to traditional manually conducted analysis methods [39; 42; 43; 45; 46; 50]. According to the authors of the included studies, the main benefits of using specialized software for cephalometric analysis are increased accuracy, reduced time, and minimized human error [39; 43; 46; 50]. In their opinion, the use of cephalometric analysis systems makes it possible to reproduce intricate details and parameters that are essential for accurate diagnosis. For instance, the CASS software conducted an analysis on computed tomography, facilitating the recreation of Spee and Wilson curves [42]. However, certain studies did not identify significant differences between analysis conducted by software and that performed by a specialist [39; 44; 47; 51]. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the selected software may not always serve as a flawless replacement. Errors can still occur despite a relatively well-conducted analysis. For instance, [PERSON] et al. [52] demonstrated such a scenario in their study, where the measurement of the U1-A point was inaccurately performed. In terms of the efficacy of individual programs, a study by [PERSON] et al. [49] suggests that orthodontic analysis programs exhibit similar effectiveness. The results of studies comparing artificial intelligence (AI) and traditional cephalometric analysis vary. Some authors highlight numerous advantages of AI, such as increased convenience, shorter analysis time, and high accuracy [48; 53]. For instance, a study by [PERSON] et al. [54] suggests that AI analysis demonstrates high precision, with deviations of up to 2 mm, and a detection rate of up to 80%. However, research conducted by [PERSON] et al. [55] did not find significant differences between traditional and AI-based analysis methods. This could be attributed to the fact that AI is still a relatively new tool in orthodontics and requires further refinement [53]. A general characteristic of the included studies has been demonstrated in Table 1.