Literature DB >> 31282737

Concurrent validity and reliability of cephalometric analysis using smartphone apps and computer software.

Christos Livas, Konstantina Delli, Frederik K L Spijkervet, Arjan Vissink, Pieter U Dijkstra.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of two smartphone cephalometric analysis apps compared with Viewbox software.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pretreatment digital lateral cephalograms of 50 consecutive orthodontic patients (20 males, 30 females; mean age, 19.1 years; SD, 11.7) were traced twice using two apps (ie, CephNinja and OneCeph), with Viewbox used as the gold standard computer software program. Seven angular and two linear measurements, originally derived from Steiner cephalometric analysis, were performed.
RESULTS: Regarding validity, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged from .903-.983 and .786-.978 for OneCeph vs Viewbox and CephNinja vs Viewbox, respectively. The ICC values for intratool reliability ranged from .647-.993. None of the CephNinja measurements was below the recommended cutoff values of ICCs for reliability.
CONCLUSIONS: OneCeph has a high validity compared with Viewbox, while CephNinja is the best alternative to Viewbox regarding reliability. Smartphone apps may have a great potential in supplementing traditional cephalometric analysis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Apps; Cephalometrics; Orthodontic diagnosis; Teledentistry

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31282737      PMCID: PMC8109163          DOI: 10.2319/021919-124.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  29 in total

1.  Comparison of landmark identification and linear and angular measurements in conventional and digital cephalometry.

Authors:  Pankaj J Akhare; Akshay M Dagab; Rajkumar S Alle; Usha Shenoyd; Venkatesh Garla
Journal:  Int J Comput Dent       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 1.883

2.  Mobile devices and apps for health care professionals: uses and benefits.

Authors:  C Lee Ventola
Journal:  P T       Date:  2014-05

Review 3.  How to Evaluate Mobile Health Applications: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Pasquale Fiore
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2017

4.  Twin Block appliance with acrylic capping does not have a significant inhibitory effect on lower incisor proclination.

Authors:  Mark Cornelis van der Plas; Krista Ingeborg Janssen; Nikolaos Pandis; Christos Livas
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2017-01-27       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  Manual tracing versus smartphone application (app) tracing: a comparative study.

Authors:  Gülşilay Sayar; Delal Dara Kilinc
Journal:  Acta Odontol Scand       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 2.331

6.  Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods.

Authors:  Omur Polat-Ozsoy; Aylin Gokcelik; T Ufuk Toygar Memikoglu
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2009-04-06       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique.

Authors:  Margherita Santoro; Karim Jarjoura; Thomas J Cangialosi
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.650

8.  Reliability Assessment of Orthodontic Apps for Cephalometrics.

Authors:  Sertaç Aksakallı; Hilal Yılancı; Erhan Görükmez; Sabri İlhan Ramoğlu
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2016-12-01

9.  Mobile medical and health apps: state of the art, concerns, regulatory control and certification.

Authors:  Maged N Kamel Boulos; Ann C Brewer; Chante Karimkhani; David B Buller; Robert P Dellavalle
Journal:  Online J Public Health Inform       Date:  2014-02-05

10.  Orthodontic apps at fingertips.

Authors:  Mayuresh Jagannath Baheti; Nandlal Toshniwal
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2014-05-30       Impact factor: 2.750

View more
  6 in total

1.  Evaluation of an automated superimposition method for computer-aided cephalometrics.

Authors:  Jun-Ho Moon; Hye-Won Hwang; Shin-Jae Lee
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings.

Authors:  Pamir Meriç; Julia Naoumova
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2020-08-11

3.  Precision of orthodontic cephalometric measurements on ultra low dose-low dose CBCT reconstructed cephalograms.

Authors:  R H van Bunningen; P U Dijkstra; A Dieters; W J van der Meer; A M Kuijpers-Jagtman; Y Ren
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-08-28       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  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

5.  The use of digital dental photography in an Eastern European country.

Authors:  Radu Lazar; Bogdan Culic; Cristina Gasparik; Camelia Lazar; Diana Dudea
Journal:  Med Pharm Rep       Date:  2022-07-26

6.  Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontic Smart Application for Treatment Coaching and Its Impact on Clinical Performance of Patients Monitored with AI-TeleHealth System.

Authors:  Andrej Thurzo; Veronika Kurilová; Ivan Varga
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-07
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.