S S Huja1, E L Grubaugh, A M Rummel, H W Fields, F M Beck. 1. Division of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, 4088 E Postle Hall, 305 W 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. huja.1@osu.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the ability to produce comparable superimpositions using hand tracing and digital methods (Dolphin v10). In addition, if the two methods were comparable, we wanted to determine if a difference existed between the best-fit cranial base superimposition and S-N superimpositions using the digital method. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty-four initial (T(1)) and final (T(2)) cephalometric film radiographs were obtained. Cranial base and regional superimpositions were completed independently for each pair of radiographs by either hand tracing and digital methods. To quantitatively evaluate the differences between the two methods, the hand and digital superimpositions were digitized to obtain x-y coordinates of routine cephalometric landmarks at T(2). Linear distance between multiple corresponding (hand and digital) T(2) cephalometric landmark locations (e.g., A point) were measured and defined as the T(2) landmark distance (T(2) LD). Additionally, 61 patient records were used to compare the digital method for best-fit cranial base superimpositions versus S-N superimpositions. A Friedman test was applied to examine for differences. RESULTS: The upper 95% confidence limit for the mean of the T(2) LD for hand and digital superimposition methods was <1 mm for all landmarks except maxillary incisor tip and apex. The upper 95% confidence interval for best-fit vs S-N was >1 mm for most landmarks. CONCLUSION: This study validates the use of superimpositions produced by Dolphin Imaging version 10 and is a necessary step forward toward widespread acceptance of digital superimpositions.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the ability to produce comparable superimpositions using hand tracing and digital methods (Dolphin v10). In addition, if the two methods were comparable, we wanted to determine if a difference existed between the best-fit cranial base superimposition and S-N superimpositions using the digital method. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty-four initial (T(1)) and final (T(2)) cephalometric film radiographs were obtained. Cranial base and regional superimpositions were completed independently for each pair of radiographs by either hand tracing and digital methods. To quantitatively evaluate the differences between the two methods, the hand and digital superimpositions were digitized to obtain x-y coordinates of routine cephalometric landmarks at T(2). Linear distance between multiple corresponding (hand and digital) T(2) cephalometric landmark locations (e.g., A point) were measured and defined as the T(2) landmark distance (T(2) LD). Additionally, 61 patient records were used to compare the digital method for best-fit cranial base superimpositions versus S-N superimpositions. A Friedman test was applied to examine for differences. RESULTS: The upper 95% confidence limit for the mean of the T(2) LD for hand and digital superimposition methods was <1 mm for all landmarks except maxillary incisor tip and apex. The upper 95% confidence interval for best-fit vs S-N was >1 mm for most landmarks. CONCLUSION: This study validates the use of superimpositions produced by Dolphin Imaging version 10 and is a necessary step forward toward widespread acceptance of digital superimpositions.