Literature DB >> 19349417

Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods.

Omur Polat-Ozsoy1, Aylin Gokcelik, T Ufuk Toygar Memikoglu.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of cephalometric measurements using computerized tracing of direct digital radiographs in comparison with hand tracing of digital radiographic printouts. Comparisons were made between methods in terms of accuracy of individual measurements as well as evaluation of treatment outcomes. Pre- (T1) and post- (T2) treatment cephalometric digital radiographs of 30 patients were traced using the Vistadent OC 1.1 computer software program (group 1) and manually (group 2) by the same investigator. A total of 26 anatomical landmarks were located and measured. Measurement reproducibility was evaluated by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients, and paired t-tests were used to compare differences in individual measurements and treatment outcomes between methods. Differences greater than 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Significant differences were found between the two methods for SNB, Wits appraisal, Cd-A, Cd-Gn, FMA, SN-PP, U1-NA (mm), U1-FH, L1-NB (mm), and Li-E plane. No significant differences were found between the two methods in the measurement of treatment changes. Cephalometric measurements of most parameters were reproducible for both methods. Despite some discrepancies in measured values between hand-tracing and the computerized method, any differences were minimal and clinically acceptable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19349417     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn121

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


  18 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.  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

6.  Coordinating bracket torque and incisor inclination : Part 1: The development of widely applicable equations.

Authors:  Bernd Zimmer; Hiba Sino
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 1.938

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.  Assessing lower incisor inclination change: a comparison of four cephalometric methods.

Authors:  Amritraj Jabbal; Martyn Cobourne; Nora Donaldson; Dirk Bister
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  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

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.