Literature DB >> 11036999

Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry.

Y J Chen1, S K Chen, H F Chang, K C Chen.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess landmark identification on digital images in comparison with those obtained from original radiographs. Ten cephalometric radiographs were selected randomly. Seven orthodontic residents identified 19 cephalometric landmarks on both the original radiographs and the digital images. To assess the concordance between landmarks identified on the original radiographs and on their digital counterparts, the x, y coordinates for each landmark in the 2 modalities were transformed with the identical references. The placement differences for 19 landmarks between 2 methods were calculated and their components in horizontal and vertical directions were analyzed respectively. Multivariate analysis of variance showed that the "cephalometric radiograph" and "landmark" variation had greater influence than that from "method" (landmark identification on digital / original radiograph). It was also noted that the differences of landmark identification between original radiographs and their digital counterparts were statistically significant. The landmarks with significant differences of horizontal component on the x-axis were Me, Gn, ANS, PNS, LIA. The differences were generally under 1 mm with the exception of Or, Me, PNS, LIA. The landmarks with significant differences of vertical component on the y-axis were Po, Or, Gn. The inter-observer error for each landmark in digital images was generally larger than that in the original radiographs. However, statistically significant differences of inter-observer errors between 2 modalities were only found for 4 of the 19 landmarks. These 4 landmarks, Po, Ar, ANS, and UM, should be scrutinized more carefully during potential applications of digital cephalometry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11036999     DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2000)070<0387:COLIIT>2.0.CO;2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  19 in total

1.  The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods.

Authors:  S F Albarakati; K S Kula; A A Ghoneima
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  Influence of a programme of professional calibration in the variability of landmark identification using cone beam computed tomography-synthesized and conventional radiographic cephalograms.

Authors:  E L Delamare; G S Liedke; M B Vizzotto; H L D da Silveira; J L D Ribeiro; H E D Silveira
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.419

3.  Novel information theory based method for superimposition of lateral head radiographs and cone beam computed tomography images.

Authors:  W Jacquet; E Nyssen; P Bottenberg; P de Groen; B Vande Vannet
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.419

4.  Reproducibility and speed of landmarking process in cephalometric analysis using two input devices: mouse-driven cursor versus pen.

Authors:  Alice Cutrera; Ersilia Barbato; Francesco Maiorana; Daniela Giordano; Rosalia Leonardi
Journal:  Ann Stomatol (Roma)       Date:  2015-07-28

5.  The effect of premolar extractions on incisor position and soft tissue profile in patients with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion.

Authors:  Catharina Weyrich; Jörg A Lisson
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2009-03-26       Impact factor: 1.938

6.  Comparison of observer reliability of three-dimensional cephalometric landmark identification on subject images from Galileos and i-CAT cone beam CT.

Authors:  R A Katkar; C Kummet; D Dawson; L Moreno Uribe; V Allareddy; M Finkelstein; A Ruprecht
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 2.419

7.  Concurrent validity and reliability of cephalometric analysis using smartphone apps and computer software.

Authors:  Christos Livas; Konstantina Delli; Frederik K L Spijkervet; Arjan Vissink; Pieter U Dijkstra
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-07-08       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  The reliability and reproducibility of an Android cephalometric smartphone application in comparison with the conventional method.

Authors:  Obada M Zamrik; Haluk İşeri
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 2.079

9.  Coordinating bracket torque and incisor inclination : Part 2: Reproducibility and statistical measures of the torque coordination angle (TCA).

Authors:  H Sino; B Zimmer; I Schelper; S Schenk-Kazan; F Streibelt
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2018-03-09       Impact factor: 1.938

10.  In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms.

Authors:  Vandana Kumar; John Ludlow; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes; André Mol
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.