Literature DB >> 19237509

Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis.

Erkan Celik1, Omur Polat-Ozsoy, T Ufuk Toygar Memikoglu.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of angular and linear cephalometric measurements using a computerized method of direct digital radiographs. This was then compared with the measurements obtained with a computerized method that uses a digitizing pad and hand tracing of printout radiographs. Pre-treatment digital cephalometric radiographs of 125 patients were traced using Vistadent 2.1 AT and Jiffy Orthodontic Evaluation (JOE) software programs and by hand tracing of the printouts. Twenty-six anatomical landmarks were defined on each radiograph by a single investigator and 28 variables were calculated. Statistical analysis was undertaken using one-way analysis of variance and multiple group comparisons using Duncan's test at a significance level of 0.05. Low correlation coefficients indicated poor reproducibility for nasolabial angle for each of the three methods (P > 0.05). Most of the variables showed consistency between the three methods except for nasolabial angle, ANS-Me, APFH, L1-NB, Nperp-Pg, Go-Me, and U1-NA measurements. The findings indicated that most of the cephalometric measurements were highly reproducible with direct digital radiographs using Vistadent 2.1 AT as well as with printouts using both JOE software and hand tracing. Despite the low correlation for some measurements between the Vistadent 2.1 AT, JOE, and hand-tracing methods, most of the commonly used measurements were accurate. The user-friendly and time-saving nature of the computerized method using digital radiographs makes it the preferred option.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19237509     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthod        ISSN: 0141-5387            Impact factor:   3.075


  17 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.  Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo.

Authors:  U Oz; K Orhan; N Abe
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.419

3.  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

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.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Reliability Assessment of Orthodontic Apps for Cephalometrics.

Authors:  Sertaç Aksakallı; Hilal Yılancı; Erhan Görükmez; Sabri İlhan Ramoğlu
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2016-12-01

10.  Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric analysis.

Authors:  Cecilia Goracci; Marco Ferrari
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 2.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.