Literature DB >> 21502380

Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs.

Mustafa Erkan1, Hakan Gurcan Gurel, Metin Nur, Baris Demirel.   

Abstract

The aim of this investigation was to compare the traditional method of manual cephalometric tracing with four different computerized tracing programs, where the lateral cephalograms were scanned at 300 dpi and digitized onscreen. Thirty randomly selected cephalometric radiographs were used in this study. Four programs Dolphin Imaging, Vistadent, Nemoceph, and Quick Ceph were evaluated. Three dental, 11 skeletal, and 1 soft tissue parameters were measured that consisted of 5 linear and 10 angular measurements. Statistical analysis was carried out using multivariate analysis of variance and Box's and Levene's tests. No statistically significant difference was found between manual tracing and the computerized tracing programs. The measurements obtained with the cephalometric analysis programs used in the study were reliable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21502380     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr008

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


  10 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Comparison of cephalometric measurements between conventional and automatic cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural network.

Authors:  Sangmin Jeon; Kyungmin Clara Lee
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 2.750

6.  Comparison of Wits appraisal among different ethnic groups.

Authors:  Khalid H Zawawi
Journal:  J Orthod Sci       Date:  2012-10

7.  Ceph-X: development and evaluation of 2D cephalometric system.

Authors:  Mogeeb Ahmed Ahmed Mosleh; Mohd Sapiyan Baba; Sorayya Malek; Rasheed A Almaktari
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2016-12-22       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  The accuracy and reliability of WebCeph for cephalometric analysis.

Authors:  Yassir A Yassir; Aya R Salman; Sarah A Nabbat
Journal:  J Taibah Univ Med Sci       Date:  2021-09-22

9.  Assessment of anterior malar projection using visual photographs and lateral cephalograms: A comparative study.

Authors:  Geeta Maruti Doddamani; P V Swathi; Kenneth F H Tan
Journal:  J Orthod Sci       Date:  2018-09-06

10.  Accuracy of one-step automated orthodontic diagnosis model using a convolutional neural network and lateral cephalogram images with different qualities obtained from nationwide multi-hospitals.

Authors:  Sunjin Yim; Sungchul Kim; Inhwan Kim; Jae-Woo Park; Jin-Hyoung Cho; Mihee Hong; Kyung-Hwa Kang; Minji Kim; Su-Jung Kim; Yoon-Ji Kim; Young Ho Kim; Sung-Hoon Lim; Sang Jin Sung; Namkug Kim; Seung-Hak Baek
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 1.372

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.