A Comparative Evaluation of Reliability of an Android-based App and Computerized Cephalometric Tracing Program for Orthodontic Cephalometric Analysis

Shettigar, Pavithra; Shetty, Shravan; Naik, Roopak D; Basavaraddi, Shrinivas; Patil, Anand

doi:10.13005/bpj/1645

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent improvements in computer and software technology have led to the introduction of computer-aided cephalometric analysis in addition to the conventional (manual) method 4 which includes direct measurement of cephalometric angles with a protractor using an overlay of acetate tracing paper secured over the radiograph after identifying the landmarks and drawing the lines with pencil and ruler, with or without the use of a view box. 5…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The accuracy and reliability of WebCeph for cephalometric analysis

Yassir

Salman

Nabbat

2022

Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study compares the accuracy and reliability of WebCeph (web-based program for cephalometric analysis) with the AutoCAD computer software. Materials and methods A sample of pretreatment digital lateral cephalograms of 50 orthodontic patients was analysed with WebCeph and AutoCAD software (as a standard measure). On each cephalogram, 17 landmarks and 11 measurements were marked and performed as skeletal, dental, and soft–tissue parameters. We used six angular and five linear measurements. A paired t-test was used to assess the systematic bias. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland–Altman plot with linear regression analysis were used to assess the agreement between the two methods. Results There was adequate reproducibility for the measurements with both WebCeph and AutoCAD. The paired t-test showed statistically significant differences for five angular and two linear measurements (P < 0.05). The ICC test between WebCeph and AutoCAD revealed very good to excellent agreement for all measurements, except for the lower incisor to mandibular plane angle. The Bland–Altman plot visually showed a relatively acceptable limit of agreement for three angular and two linear measurements only, and the linear regression analysis revealed a significant proportional bias between the two methods for four angles and the upper lip-Esthetic line (U Lip-E Line). The systematic bias and level of agreement improved with the use of the semi-automatic WebCeph. Conclusions Different problems, such as poor landmark identification/soft tissue tracing and inconsistency of measurements, are inherent to the automatic WebCeph. The semi-automatic WebCeph can overcome some limitations of the automatic WebCeph; however, it should be used for cephalometric analysis with a great deal of caution.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 16 Because software is now widely available and regularly used in orthodontic practice, it is necessary to assess their accuracy to identify the most appropriate type to use. 4 , 17 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The accuracy and reliability of WebCeph for cephalometric analysis

Yassir

Salman

Nabbat

2022

Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Published reports on the accuracy of cephalometric tracing apps are scarce and include conditions that vary with the software version, display device, screen size, use of a landmark identification instrument, and reference tracing method. [11][12][13][14] A recent paper 14 published accuracy results for cephalometric analysis with OneCeph, reporting a single-examiner experiment on a Samsung Galaxy S8 smartphone with a 5.8" screen (2960x1440). The lowest repeatability estimates (intra-class correlation coefficients, ICC) were registered for lower incisor protrusion, mandibular plane angle, upper incisor protrusion, and lower incisor inclination (ICC [95% confidence interval]: 0.647 [0.451, 0.784], 0.658 [0.466, 0.791], 0.701 [0.529, 0.818], and 0.867 [0.778, 0.922], respectively).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smartphone and computer cephalometric analysis: A trueness and precision study

Amorim¹,

Diamantino²,

Pereira³

et al. 2022

j.rpemd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Performing digital cephalometric analysis on apps is a convenient feature of handheld devices. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of the OneCeph cephalometric tracing app on a smartphone and computer. Methods: 34 lateral cephalograms were traced in two sessions using three methods: OneCeph on a smartphone, OneCeph on a computer, and NemoCeph on a computer as the reference. For trueness analysis, the measurements were compared between each test method and the reference. For precision analysis, the measurements were compared between sessions. Results: Regarding trueness analysis, significant differences were found between OneCeph and NemoCeph for ANB (smartphone, -0.3±0.68; computer, -0.3±0.52), OL/SN (smartphone, -1.1±2.68; computer -2.0±2.98), and GoGn/SN (smartphone, -0.5±1.27; computer, -0.8±1.56). OneCeph reproducibility was high for all cephalometric variables except OL/SN, both on the smartphone and the computer (ICC [95%CI]: 0.888 [0.773-0.944] and 0.842 [0.583-0.931], respectively). Repeatability was high for all cephalometric variables except OL/SN and UINA on the smartphone (ICC [95%CI]: 0.889 [0.730-0.950] and 0.831 [0.687-0.912], respectively). Tracing time was significantly higher for both OneCeph methods. Conclusions: OneCeph demonstrated adequate accuracy and efficiency on both interfaces. Clinical judgment is advised when interpreting the measurement output of handheld devices, which may provide a higher frequency of gross landmark identification errors.

show abstract

“…10 According to Shettigar et al the application “One ceph” proved to be accurate in diagnosis when tested against Dolphin software. 18…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handy Gadget for Cephalometric Analysis: A Systematic Review

Goutham¹,

Neeharika²,

Hk³

et al. 2021

J Indian Orthod Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With exceptional progress in the field of electronics, newer diagnostic modalities have become popular in medicine. Out of the several gadgets invented, smartphones are the handiest and celebrated innovations of the world. The usage of smartphones has had a colossal influence on individuals and society in all aspects of daily life such as the economy, education, and communication just to mention a few. It also has an extended spread to many sectors, including health care and dentistry with multifarious benefits. Today, several orthodontic applications are available as software on computers and smartphones. The applications can process diagnosis, provide a good doctor–patient interface, and also cater to patient needs. Concerning orthodontics, diagnosis is of high priority, with radiographic analysis being the most crucial step. At the moment, several applications are available on smartphones to perform cephalometric analysis using radiographs. Just with a few clicks, cephalometric analysis can be performed, and the results are displayed in a flash. Only a minor number of orthodontists are enlightened about the operation of smartphones for cephalometric analysis. To elicit awareness, a narrative review has been performed on the software for cephalometric analysis available on smartphones. This article reviews the reliance of smartphones for the assessment of cephalometric analysis.

show abstract

A Comparative Evaluation of Reliability of an Android-based App and Computerized Cephalometric Tracing Program for Orthodontic Cephalometric Analysis

Cited by 12 publications

References 11 publications

The accuracy and reliability of WebCeph for cephalometric analysis

The accuracy and reliability of WebCeph for cephalometric analysis

Smartphone and computer cephalometric analysis: A trueness and precision study

Handy Gadget for Cephalometric Analysis: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About