S F Albarakati1, K S Kula, A A Ghoneima. 1. Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and reproducibility of angular and linear measurements of conventional and digital cephalometric methods. METHODS: A total of 13 landmarks and 16 skeletal and dental parameters were defined and measured on pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 30 patients. The conventional and digital tracings and measurements were performed twice by the same examiner with a 6 week interval between measurements. The reliability within the method was determined using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r²). The reproducibility between methods was calculated by paired t-test. The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: All measurements for each method were above 0.90 r² (strong correlation) except maxillary length, which had a correlation of 0.82 for conventional tracing. Significant differences between the two methods were observed in most angular and linear measurements except for ANB angle (p = 0.5), angle of convexity (p = 0.09), anterior cranial base (p = 0.3) and the lower anterior facial height (p = 0.6). CONCLUSION: In general, both methods of conventional and digital cephalometric analysis are highly reliable. Although the reproducibility of the two methods showed some statistically significant differences, most differences were not clinically significant.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and reproducibility of angular and linear measurements of conventional and digital cephalometric methods. METHODS: A total of 13 landmarks and 16 skeletal and dental parameters were defined and measured on pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 30 patients. The conventional and digital tracings and measurements were performed twice by the same examiner with a 6 week interval between measurements. The reliability within the method was determined using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r²). The reproducibility between methods was calculated by paired t-test. The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: All measurements for each method were above 0.90 r² (strong correlation) except maxillary length, which had a correlation of 0.82 for conventional tracing. Significant differences between the two methods were observed in most angular and linear measurements except for ANB angle (p = 0.5), angle of convexity (p = 0.09), anterior cranial base (p = 0.3) and the lower anterior facial height (p = 0.6). CONCLUSION: In general, both methods of conventional and digital cephalometric analysis are highly reliable. Although the reproducibility of the two methods showed some statistically significant differences, most differences were not clinically significant.
Authors: Mohammed Umar Farooq; Mohd Asadullah Khan; Shahid Imran; Ayesha Sameera; Arshad Qureshi; Syed Afroz Ahmed; Sujan Kumar; Mohd Aziz Ur Rahman Journal: J Clin Diagn Res Date: 2016-10-01
Authors: Lizhe Xie; Wen Tang; Iman Izadikhah; Xiaoyu Chen; Zhenqi Zhao; Yang Zhao; Hu Li; Bin Yan Journal: Oral Radiol Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 1.882
Authors: Ahmed Lotf Algahefi; Maged S Alhammadi; Bowen Zheng; Abeer A Almashraqi; Yang Zhao; Yi Liu Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 3.606
Authors: Sander Brons; Machteld E van Beusichem; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Jos Draaisma; Stefaan J Bergé; Thomas J Maal; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-08-06 Impact factor: 3.240