INTRODUCTION: The literature has shown that subjective concepts lead to interobserver variations in the definitions and identifications of cephalometric landmarks. Observers must be trained and calibrated to conduct scientific research using cephalometric comparisons. In this study, we aimed to develop and test a computational model called Cyclops cephalometry in radiographic cephalometry training and calibration. METHODS: This system uses the concepts of evaluation process managers, examiners, and testers, thus affording uniformity in cephalometric evaluations. The system was tested with 5 orthodontists and 5 postgraduate students who located 28 landmarks in 10 lateral cephalometric radiographs before and after training. RESULTS: Before training, the Student t test showed significant differences (P <0.05) in accuracy between the orthodontists and the students (71.4% and 54.9%, respectively). However, considerable improvement in accuracy was observed after training in both groups (86.5% and 83%, respectively), without significant differences (P = 0.30) between groups. Users of the system agreed about its usability aspects such as effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: This model was shown to be a useful and efficient tool in the calibration process, and might be helpful in various comparative cephalometric investigations.
INTRODUCTION: The literature has shown that subjective concepts lead to interobserver variations in the definitions and identifications of cephalometric landmarks. Observers must be trained and calibrated to conduct scientific research using cephalometric comparisons. In this study, we aimed to develop and test a computational model called Cyclops cephalometry in radiographic cephalometry training and calibration. METHODS: This system uses the concepts of evaluation process managers, examiners, and testers, thus affording uniformity in cephalometric evaluations. The system was tested with 5 orthodontists and 5 postgraduate students who located 28 landmarks in 10 lateral cephalometric radiographs before and after training. RESULTS: Before training, the Student t test showed significant differences (P <0.05) in accuracy between the orthodontists and the students (71.4% and 54.9%, respectively). However, considerable improvement in accuracy was observed after training in both groups (86.5% and 83%, respectively), without significant differences (P = 0.30) between groups. Users of the system agreed about its usability aspects such as effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: This model was shown to be a useful and efficient tool in the calibration process, and might be helpful in various comparative cephalometric investigations.
Authors: G S Liedke; E L Delamare; M B Vizzotto; H L D da Silveira; J R Prietsch; V Dutra; H E D da Silveira Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.419
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