Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks

Liu, Jia-Kuang; Chen, Yen Ting; Cheng, Kuo‐Sheng

doi:10.1067/mod.2000.110168

Cited by 78 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This can cause fewer measurement errors than the conventional (manual) cephalometric analysis. Overall, errors resulting from drawing and measuring with a ruler and a protractor may be eliminated by these computer programs (14).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability Assessment of Orthodontic Apps for Cephalometrics

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of cephalometric measurements using iPad apps called CephNinja and SmartCeph Pro. The measurements were compared with the measurements obtained using Dolphin Imaging computer software. Methods:Twenty digital cephalometric radiographs were randomly selected from the archives and traced using the CephNinja app, SmartCeph Pro app, and Dolphin Imaging software. Twenty-one landmarks and 16 measurements were performed in each program. The statistical analysis was conducted using the Bland-Altman analysis at a significance level of 0.05. Results:For the CephNinja app, there were seven measurements that were in accordance with Dolphin Imaging software. For the SmartCeph Pro app, six measurements were in accordance with Dolphin software. Both apps gave better results for angular measurements than linear ones. Conclusion:These findings indicate that, although they are user-friendly, orthodontic apps for cephalometrics are not equal with Dolphin software now and need to be developed to be more reliable for most of the measurements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability Assessment of Orthodontic Apps for Cephalometrics

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In computerized cephalometric analysis, once the requested landmarks have been entered, the software automatically calculates distances and angles, thus eliminating errors that may occur in hand tracing when drawing lines with a ruler and measuring angles with a protractor. 5,7,8 Furthermore, collecting computer-assisted cephalometrics is less time-consuming than manual tracing, 3,9 and it allows the user to obtain several analyses at a time. 6 In addition, digital archiving overcomes the problem of film deterioration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric analysis

Goracci

Ferrari

2013

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess the reproducibility of cephalometric measurements performed with software for a tablet, with a program for personal computers (PCs), and manually. Materials and Methods: The pretreatment lateral cephalograms of 20 patients that were acquired using the same digital cephalometer were collected. Tracings were performed with NemoCeph for Windows (Nemotec), with SmileCeph for iPad (Glace Software), and by hand. Landmark identification was carried out with a mouse-driven cursor using NemoCeph and with a stylus pen on the iPad screen using SmileCeph. Hand tracings were performed on printouts of the cephalograms, using a 0.3-mm 2H pencil and a protractor. Cephalometric landmarks and linear and angular measurements were recorded. All the tracings were done by the same investigator. To evaluate reproducibility, for each cephalometric measurement the agreement between the value derived from NemoCeph, that given by SmileCeph and that measured manually was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement was rated as low for an ICC #0.75, and an ICC . 0.75 was considered indicative of good agreement. Also, differences in measurements between each software and manual tracing were statistically evaluated (P , .05). Results: All the measurements had ICC .0.8, indicative of a high agreement among the tracing methods. Relatively lower ICCs occurred for linear measurements related to the occlusal plane and to N perpendicular to the Frankfurt plane. Differences in measurements between both software programs and hand tracing were not statistically significant for any of the cephalometric parameters. Conclusion: Tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric tracings showed good agreement. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:437-442.)

show abstract

“…Computer analysis can reduce the number of mistakes that may be done in manual methods. These mistakes can happen when drawing lines by a ruler or measuring an angle by conveyor (5). On the other hand, when landmarks are located by hand, mistakes maybe happened when locating them, but finally the amount of mistakes in the computer based method will not be more than manual method (10).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison Between Digital and Ordinary Methods in Analyzing Cephalometric Radiographic Images

Noush¹,

Esmaily²

2015

Iran J Ortho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontic and orthognathic surgery is greatly related to the results of cephalometric analysis report. Manual analysis is time taking and if the precision and accuracy of this technique can be achieved by digital method, time is saved considerably. On the other hand digital programs have fewer errors compared to manual methods done by human. Any mistake in the process of analysis can lead to wrong diagnosis and treatment planning and finally treatment failure. Objectives: The main aim of this study was to compare the linear and angular measures between the two methods, digital and manual. No significant difference between these measures in the two methods will result in that digital method can be used instead of manual in order to save time. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted on 40 cephalometric images taken from a radiology clinic. The samples were analyzed by computer after determining key points. Romexis ® (planmeca Romexis ® cephalometric analysis) software was used for computer analysis. The samples were then printed and analyzed manually. At last all the measures obtained from 11 different landmarks by two observers were compared by interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for reliability. Results:The results of this study showed that the obtained data was 100 percent reliable. On the other hand no significant difference was observed in each of the evaluated landmarks between two methods. Conclusions: It seems that cephalometric analysis software is not only reliable but also saves time and reduces manual analysis errors.

show abstract

Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks

Cited by 78 publications

References 13 publications

Reliability Assessment of Orthodontic Apps for Cephalometrics

Reliability Assessment of Orthodontic Apps for Cephalometrics

Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric analysis

Comparison Between Digital and Ordinary Methods in Analyzing Cephalometric Radiographic Images

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About