Literature DB >> 19443692

Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses.

Tancan Uysal1, Asli Baysal, Ahmet Yagci.   

Abstract

The aims of this study were to evaluate intra-examiner repeatability and inter-examiner reproducibility of landmarks using two cephalometric analysing techniques, manual and computerized, and to compare these for speed. One hundred lateral cephalometric radiographs were randomly selected and 11 angular and six linear parameters were traced and measured by two examiners using the manual method and Dolphin Image Software 9.0 on each radiograph. A Student's t-test for paired and independent samples was used to compare the mean values of intra- and inter-examiner differences. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to determine intra- and inter-examiner correlation (r value). Both operators were generally consistent in the repeated measurements; however, for one examiner, the differences for Na is perpendicular to A (P < 0.001), Na is perpendicular Pog, and U1-NA (P < 0.01) distance measurements were found to be statistically significant. Intra-examiner repeatability of landmarks both with the manual and Dolphin techniques showed high correlation coefficients. While inter-examiner reproducibility of landmarks was unacceptable, measurement errors with the manual technique were generally comparable with the Dolphin technique. The mean tracing times of the two operators for a single tracing was 2 minutes 41 seconds for Dolphin and 6 minutes 51 seconds for manual tracings. Computer-assisted cephalometric analysis does not increase intra- and inter-examiner reliability but can result in time saving.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19443692     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjp022

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


  8 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.  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

3.  Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings.

Authors:  Pamir Meriç; Julia Naoumova
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2020-08-11

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Efficacy of a Newly Designed Cephalometric Analysis Software for McNamara Analysis in Comparison with Dolphin Software.

Authors:  Mahtab Nouri; Shadi Hamidiaval; Alireza Akbarzadeh Baghban; Mohammad Basafa; Mohammad Fahim
Journal:  J Dent (Tehran)       Date:  2015-01

7.  Comparison between cephalometric measurements using digital manual and web-based artificial intelligence cephalometric tracing software.

Authors:  Gökhan Çoban; Taner Öztürk; Nizami Hashimli; Ahmet Yağci
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2022-08-15

8.  Transverse Changes in Mandible Following Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy Advancement.

Authors:  Tushar Deshmukh; N K Sahoo
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2018-10-09
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.