Literature DB >> 16979492

A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs.

Lance Q Bruntz1, J Martin Palomo, Sally Baden, Mark G Hans.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Digital cephalometric radiography is gaining popularity in orthodontic practices. However, few studies have compared measurements and superimpositions on analog radiographs with those made on scanned digital images. The objectives of this study were to evaluate distortion associated with scanning lateral cephalograms and printing to hard copy, and to assess the accuracy of digital images for regular cephalometric tasks.
METHODS: Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalograms from 30 subjects were selected and 3 groups were created: original, digital, and hard copy. All films had 8 fiducial marks punched and were scanned at 150 dots per inch. The hard copies were created with a laser printer. Twenty-three cephalometric measures and 3 superimpositions were evaluated for distortion, measurement accuracy, and superimposition results. Paired t tests were used to assess statistical significance.
RESULTS: Distortion between the original and the scanned image showed 0.8 mm vertical enlargement and 0.4 mm horizontal reduction. Printed radiographs had 1.1 mm vertical and 0.4 mm horizontal enlargement. All differences were statistically significant. Cephalometric comparisons between original and digital images showed statistical differences in Frankfort horizontal (FH)-occlusal plane, maxillary central incisor-FH, facial plane, y-axis, Frankfort plane to mandibular plane angle (FMA), and FH-Naison to point A (NA). Significant differences also were found in facial plane, y-axis, FMA, and FH-NA when comparing the digital and the hard-copy images. All measurements with differences contained the landmarks porion and orbitale. No differences were found between the original and the hard-copy images. Likewise, no significant differences were found between the original and the digital superimpositions.
CONCLUSIONS: Although some distortion was found, the relatively small horizontal and vertical discrepancies were deemed clinically insignificant. Landmark identification errors on scanned images contributed to the discrepancies in cephalometric analysis. Therefore, for clinical orthodontic applications, scanned cephalograms can be used. However, caution must be exercised when determining porion and orbitale.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16979492     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  14 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.  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

3.  The applicability of a non-anatomical soft and hard tissue centroid line (S&H centroid) in cephalometrics.

Authors:  Ibrahim S Al-Shahrani; Khalid M Al-Balkhi; Abdulaziz Al-Madi
Journal:  Saudi Dent J       Date:  2010-02-06

4.  Comparative evaluation of cephalometric measurements of monitor-displayed images by Nemoceph software and its hard copy by manual tracing.

Authors:  Tripti Tikku; Rohit Khanna; R P Maurya; Kamna Srivastava; Rastra Bhushan
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2014-01-08

5.  Quantitative evaluation of patient movement during simulated acquisition of cephalometric radiographs.

Authors:  Kyung-Hoe Huh; Erika Benavides; Young-Tak Jo; Bo-Ram Choi; Won-Jin Yi; Min-Suk Heo; Sam-Sun Lee; Soon-Chul Choi
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  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

7.  Comparison of manual, digital and lateral CBCT cephalometric analyses.

Authors:  Ricardo de Lima Navarro; Paula Vanessa Pedron Oltramari-Navarro; Thais Maria Freire Fernandes; Giovani Fidelis de Oliveira; Ana Cláudia de Castro Ferreira Conti; Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida; Renato Rodrigues de Almeida
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.698

8.  The Canadian Systemic Sclerosis Oral Health Study IV: oral radiographic manifestations in systemic sclerosis compared with the general population.

Authors:  Marie Dagenais; David MacDonald; Murray Baron; Marie Hudson; Solène Tatibouet; Russell Steele; Sabrina Gravel; Shrisha Mohit; Tarek El Sayegh; Janet Pope; Audrey Fontaine; Ariel Masseto; Debora Matthews; Evelyn Sutton; Norman Thie; Niall Jones; Maria Copete; Dean Kolbinson; Janet Markland; Getulio Nogueira-Filho; David Robinson; Mervyn Gornitsky
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol       Date:  2015-03-25

9.  Comparative Evaluation of Conventional and OnyxCeph™ Dental Software Measurements on Cephalometric Radiography.

Authors:  Elif İzgi; Filiz Namdar Pekiner
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2019-06-01

10.  An evaluation of cellular neural networks for the automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks on digital images.

Authors:  Rosalia Leonardi; Daniela Giordano; Francesco Maiorana
Journal:  J Biomed Biotechnol       Date:  2009-09-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.