Literature DB >> 3165025

Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements.

P J Sandler1.   

Abstract

This cephalometric study was undertaken to compare and contrast the errors involved in taking linear and angular measurements using three different methods; hand instruments on tracings, digitization of tracings, and direct digitization of the radiographs. Of the three methods direct digitization of the radiographs proved to be the most reproducible particularly with angular measurements, although statistically significant differences were rarely found. Tracings were advantageous only with linear measurements involving constructed points such as Gonion and Articulare. Traditional methods of measurement using a ruler and protractor compared well with computer based methods involving the digitizer.

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3165025     DOI: 10.1179/bjo.15.2.105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Orthod        ISSN: 0301-228X


  10 in total

1.  The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods.

Authors:  S F Albarakati; K S Kula; A A Ghoneima
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo.

Authors:  U Oz; K Orhan; N Abe
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.419

3.  3D soft tissue analysis--part 2: vertical parameters.

Authors:  Janka Kochel; Philipp Meyer-Marcotty; Michael Kochel; Susanne Schneck; Angelika Stellzig-Eisenhauer
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 1.938

4.  The relationship between 3D dentofacial photogrammetry measurements and traditional cephalometric measurements.

Authors:  Jose C Castillo; Grace Gianneschi; Demyana Azer; Amornrut Manosudprasit; Arshan Haghi; Neetu Bansal; Veerasathpurush Allareddy; Mohamed I Masoud
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  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

6.  Assessing the Reliability of Digitalized Cephalometric Analysis in Comparison with Manual Cephalometric Analysis.

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

7.  Assessing lower incisor inclination change: a comparison of four cephalometric methods.

Authors:  Amritraj Jabbal; Martyn Cobourne; Nora Donaldson; Dirk Bister
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  3D soft tissue analysis--part 1: sagittal parameters.

Authors:  Janka Kochel; Philipp Meyer-Marcotty; Friederike Strnad; Michael Kochel; Angelika Stellzig-Eisenhauer
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2010-02-05       Impact factor: 1.938

9.  A cephalometric study to investigate the skeletal relationships in patients with increasing severity of hypodontia.

Authors:  Priti N Acharya; Steven P Jones; David Moles; Daljit Gill; Nigel P Hunt
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  Evaluation of fully automated cephalometric measurements obtained from web-based artificial intelligence driven platform.

Authors:  Ravi Kumar Mahto; Dashrath Kafle; Abhishek Giri; Sanjeev Luintel; Arjun Karki
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2022-04-19       Impact factor: 3.747

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.