## 3 Results  
### Precision Analysis  
Table 1 shows the ICCs of the cephalometric measurements for each group. Mean ICC values were also calculated for all groups of examiners by averaging the individual cephalometric measurement ICC values. According to the results, AI showed excellent precision (ICCs > 0.90). The precision of the examiners without the aid of AI generally followed their level of experience and exposure to the cephalometric analyses. The orthodontist, resident, dentist, and dental student had a mean ICC of 0.92, 0.92, 0.81, and 0.77, respectively. With the aid of AI, the precision of the orthodontist, resident, dentist, and dental student improved by 3.26%, 2.17%, 19.75%, and 23.38%, respectively (Figure 2). Overall, the precision of the examiners improved by 10.47% with the aid of AI. As we expected, the least experienced clinicians benefitted the most from the help of AI. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Measurements**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Orthodontist**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Orthodontist**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Resident**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Resident**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Dentist**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Dentist**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**AI**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Student**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Student**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**AI**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**AI**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean**} \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline SNA (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.92 & 0.93 & 0.91 & 0.93 & 0.71 & 0.98 & 0.39 & 0.94 & 0.97 & 0.73 & 0.95 \\ SN-Palatal Plane (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.93 & 0.93 & 0.89 & 0.98 & 0.62 & 0.96 & 0.74 & 0.96 & 0.92 & 0.80 & 0.96 \\ SNB (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.96 & 0.94 & 0.92 & 0.98 & 0.77 & 0.98 & 0.92 & 0.96 & 0.99 & 0.89 & 0.97 \\ PMA (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.95 & 0.93 & 0.94 & 0.98 & 0.88 & 0.97 & 0.88 & 0.98 & 0.99 & 0.91 & 0.97 \\ SN-MP (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.99 & 0.95 & 0.95 & 0.99 & 0.88 & 0.98 & 0.95 & 0.99 & 1.00 & 0.94 & 0.98 \\ Y-Axis (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.97 & 0.96 & 0.92 & 0.98 & 0.79 & 0.98 & 0.93 & 0.97 & 0.99 & 0.90 & 0.97 \\ ANB (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.81 & 0.91 & 0.84 & 0.73 & 0.60 & 1.00 & 0.13 & 0.89 & 0.91 & 0.60 & 0.88 \\ ANS-PNS (mm) & 0.78 & 0.92 & 0.86 & 0.91 & 0.58 & 0.98 & 0.65 & 0.93 & 0.99 & 0.72 & 0.94 \\ Co-G (mm) & 0.95 & 0.96 & 0.96 & 0.99 & 0.82 & 0.98 & 0.88 & 0.97 & 1.00 & 0.90 & 0.98 \\ Ba-S (N \({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.97 & 0.96 & 0.94 & 0.98 & 0.87 & 0.94 & 0.87 & 0.96 & 1.00 & 0.91 & 0.96 \\ U1-SN (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.95 & 0.96 & 0.93 & 0.95 & 0.91 & 0.93 & 0.90 & 0.95 & 0.98 & 0.92 & 0.95 \\ U1-NA (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.93 & 0.96 & 0.96 & 0.94 & 0.92 & 0.93 & 0.90 & 0.95 & 0.97 & 0.93 & 0.95 \\ U1-NA (mm) & 0.88 & 0.92 & 0.90 & 0.81 & 0.71 & 0.96 & 0.22 & 0.91 & 0.91 & 0.68 & 0.90 \\ L1-MP (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.94 & 0.96 & 0.95 & 0.96 & 0.96 & 0.98 & 0.90 & 0.93 & 0.99 & 0.94 & 0.96 \\ L1-NN (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.92 & 0.98 & 0.94 & 0.94 & 0.93 & 0.97 & 0.84 & 0.88 & 0.99 & 0.91 & 0.94 \\ L1-NB (mm) & 0.94 & 0.96 & 0.96 & 0.98 & 0.94 & 1.00 & 0.92 & 0.97 & 0.99 & 0.94 & 0.98 \\ Interítical Angle (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.96 & 0.98 & 0.96 & 0.96 & 0.96 & 0.96 & 0.90 & 0.94 & 0.99 & 0.95 & 0.96 \\ Upper lip to & & & & & & & & & & & \\ E-Plane (mm) & 0.99 & 0.99 & 0.99 & 0.99 & 0.98 & 0.96 & 0.98 & 1.00 & 0.98 & 0.99 \\ Lower lip to & & & & & & & & & & & \\ E-Plane (mm) & 1.00 & 0.99 & 0.99 & 0.99 & 0.99 & 0.97 & 0.99 & 1.00 & 0.99 & 0.99 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Precision of the examiners with and without the aid of AI given by the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Without the aid of AI, the cephalometric measurements that yielded moderate precision were maxillary length, U1-NA (mm), SNA, ANB, and convexity angles. With the AI/human augmentation method, 23 out of 26 measurements showed excellent precision, while U1-NA (mm), ANB, and convexity angles improved to good precision (Table 1). Table 2 shows the results of the one-way ANOVA analysis, with a random effect used to test for the differences in precision between the methods.