Literature DB >> 2029231

Cephalometric errors: a comparison between repeat measurements and retaken radiographs.

M S Cooke1, S H Wei.   

Abstract

This study compares landmark location errors in cephalometric radiography (when re-measuring radiographs) and radiographic errors (when retaking the radiograph). The samples comprised 32 remeasured and re-digitized radiographs and a further series of 22 retaken radiographs drawn from the same overall sample of 12-year-old Chinese children in Hong Kong. All radiographs were recorded in natural head posture with the lips in light contact. The relative size of the errors were assessed by calculating the 'error percentage' for both selected dento-skeletal and soft tissue profile measures. It is suggested that this index is clinically more meaningful than the usually used 'method error'. It expresses the variance of the method error (me2) as a percentage of the variance of the measurement under study (standard deviation2). This error percentage was found to be doubled, on average, for measurements on the retaken radiographs. In general, measures with most landmarks in the mid-sagittal plane showed the least increase in percentage error. The results suggest that errors arising from retaking cephalometric radiographs may effectively be greater than those usually reported. The Frankfort plane, the functional occlusal plane and the incisor long axes displayed poor reproducibility. For the soft tissues the lips served as poor angular landmarks and relatively acute angles with short 'arms' also displayed large errors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2029231     DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1991.tb00806.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust Dent J        ISSN: 0045-0421            Impact factor:   2.291


  5 in total

1.  Validity of the computer-assisted cephalometric growth prognosis VTO (Visual Treatment Objective) according to Ricketts.

Authors:  C Toepel-Sievers; H Fischer-Brandies
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 1.938

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Head orientation in CBCT-generated cephalograms.

Authors:  Lucia Cevidanes; Ana E F Oliveira; Alexandre Motta; Ceib Phillips; Brandon Burke; Donald Tyndall
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.079

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.