OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the reliability of three different methods of cephalometric analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Conventional pretreatment lateral cephalograms and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans from 50 subjects from a radiological clinic were selected in order to test the three methods: manual tracings (MT), digitized lateral cephalograms (DLC), and lateral cephalograms from CBCT (LC-CBCT). The lateral cephalograms were manually analyzed through the Dolphin Imaging 11.0™ software. Twenty measurements were performed under the same conditions, and retraced after a 30-day period. Paired t tests and the Dahlberg formula were used to evaluate the intra-examiner errors. The Pearson's correlation coefficient and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were used to compare the differences between the methods. RESULTS: Intra-examiner reliability occurred for all methods for most of the measurements. Only six measurements were different between the methods and an agreement was observed in the analyses among the 3 methods. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrated that all evaluated methodologies are reliable and valid for scientific research, however, the method used in the lateral cephalograms from the CBCT proved the most reliable.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the reliability of three different methods of cephalometric analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Conventional pretreatment lateral cephalograms and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans from 50 subjects from a radiological clinic were selected in order to test the three methods: manual tracings (MT), digitized lateral cephalograms (DLC), and lateral cephalograms from CBCT (LC-CBCT). The lateral cephalograms were manually analyzed through the Dolphin Imaging 11.0™ software. Twenty measurements were performed under the same conditions, and retraced after a 30-day period. Paired t tests and the Dahlberg formula were used to evaluate the intra-examiner errors. The Pearson's correlation coefficient and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were used to compare the differences between the methods. RESULTS: Intra-examiner reliability occurred for all methods for most of the measurements. Only six measurements were different between the methods and an agreement was observed in the analyses among the 3 methods. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrated that all evaluated methodologies are reliable and valid for scientific research, however, the method used in the lateral cephalograms from the CBCT proved the most reliable.
Authors: A Thurzo; V Javorka; P Stanko; J Lysy; B Suchancova; V Lehotska; L Valkovic; M Makovnik Journal: Bratisl Lek Listy Date: 2010 Impact factor: 1.278
Authors: Karen Regina Siqueira de Souza; Paula Vanessa Pedron Oltramari-Navarro; Ricardo de Lima Navarro; Ana Cláudia de Castro Ferreira Conti; Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida Journal: Braz Oral Res Date: 2013 Jan-Feb
Authors: Dan Grauer; Lucia S H Cevidanes; Martin A Styner; Inam Heulfe; Eric T Harmon; Hongtu Zhu; William R Proffit Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Andreas F Hellak; Bernhard Kirsten; Michael Schauseil; Rolf Davids; Wolfgang M Kater; Heike M Korbmacher-Steiner Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 2.151