Gülşilay Sayar1, Delal Dara Kilinc1. 1. a Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry , Istanbul Medipol University , Istanbul , Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the results of conventional manual cephalometric tracing with those acquired with smartphone application cephalometric tracing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cephalometric radiographs of 55 patients (25 females and 30 males) were traced via the manual and app methods and were subsequently examined with Steiner's analysis. Five skeletal measurements, five dental measurements and two soft tissue measurements were managed based on 21 landmarks. The durations of the performances of the two methods were also compared. RESULTS: SNA (Sella, Nasion, A point angle) and SNB (Sella, Nasion, B point angle) values for the manual method were statistically lower (p < .001) than those for the app method. The ANB value for the manual method was statistically lower than that of app method. L1-NB (°) and upper lip protrusion values for the manual method were statistically higher than those for the app method. Go-GN/SN, U1-NA (°) and U1-NA (mm) values for manual method were statistically lower than those for the app method. No differences between the two methods were found in the L1-NB (mm), occlusal plane to SN, interincisal angle or lower lip protrusion values. CONCLUSIONS: Although statistically significant differences were found between the two methods, the cephalometric tracing proceeded faster with the app method than with the manual method.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the results of conventional manual cephalometric tracing with those acquired with smartphone application cephalometric tracing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cephalometric radiographs of 55 patients (25 females and 30 males) were traced via the manual and app methods and were subsequently examined with Steiner's analysis. Five skeletal measurements, five dental measurements and two soft tissue measurements were managed based on 21 landmarks. The durations of the performances of the two methods were also compared. RESULTS: SNA (Sella, Nasion, A point angle) and SNB (Sella, Nasion, B point angle) values for the manual method were statistically lower (p < .001) than those for the app method. The ANB value for the manual method was statistically lower than that of app method. L1-NB (°) and upper lip protrusion values for the manual method were statistically higher than those for the app method. Go-GN/SN, U1-NA (°) and U1-NA (mm) values for manual method were statistically lower than those for the app method. No differences between the two methods were found in the L1-NB (mm), occlusal plane to SN, interincisal angle or lower lip protrusion values. CONCLUSIONS: Although statistically significant differences were found between the two methods, the cephalometric tracing proceeded faster with the app method than with the manual method.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cephalometry; mobile technologies; smartphone application; tracing