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

Santoro, Margherita; Jarjoura, Karim; Cangialosi, Thomas J.

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.010

Cited by 73 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…3,9,12,20,23 Similar difficulties may be encountered in the definition of the occlusal plane 12 and this may account for the relatively lower intermethod agreement observed for Wits measurements. In contrast to the finding of Santoro et al, 18 who reported a significant difference between digital and manual measurements of L1 to A-Pog, in the present study this cephalometric parameter showed very high reproducibility with an ICC value of 0.986.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…6,9 Earlier studies have assessed the reproducibility of measurements in manual versus computer-aided cephalometric analysis. [3][4][5][6][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] However, as new programs for computerized cephalometry are continuously launched, their accuracy needs to be validated against that of previously marketed softwares and against traditional hand tracing. Lately, a software for digital tracing has been made available as an application for iPad.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

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

show abstract

“…The difference in measurements between the two methods could be due to the fact that certain hard tissue landmarks such as articulare, gonion, porion, menton, gnathion, orbitale and point 'A' lie on poorly defined outlines or low contrast areas, and also some of the soft tissue landmarks such as Li, Ls, Me', Pog' and Sn are present on the contoured area, making them difficult to locate on radiographs in manual technique. These are substantiated by the findings of Houston et al, 15 Gregston et al, 20 Santaro et al 17 and Ozsoy et al, 12 who also found difficulties in locating landmarks Ar, Gn, Go, Po, Or, lower incisor apex, Me, Pog, and point A. During manual tracing different reference planes were constructed to assist in identifying points Gn, Me and Go, which was not possible with on-screen digitization, where these points were marked by the operator with a single click of the mouse without any reference plane construction.…”

Section: 313à16mentioning

confidence: 56%

Comparative evaluation of cephalometric measurements of monitor-displayed images by Nemoceph software and its hard copy by manual tracing

Tikku

Khanna

Maurya

et al. 2014

Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tObjective: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the cephalometric measurements obtained from computerized tracing of direct digital radiographs and hand tracing of their digital radiographic printouts. Material and methods: The soft-and hard-copies of pre-treatment lateral cephalograms of 40 subjects (both males and females) within the age group of 10e30 years, irrespective of the type of malocclusion were taken. Total 26 measurements (13 linear and 13 angular) were obtained using both the manual and the digital technique. for angular measurements). While amongst the angular measurements, only occlusal plane angle showed statistically significant difference between the two techniques that was not clinically acceptable.

show abstract

“…Errors related to landmark identification, occur among other factors due to anatomical variability of landmark location, patient's head position variations, image magnification, difficulties that arise a 2-dimensional image representing a 3-dimensional structure and also owing to overlapping of bilateral structures 23,[25][26][27][28] . Interobserver inconsistencies in landmark identification and tracing errors are also major sources of discrepancies 29 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sella landmark variability and its effect on the Angles SNA and SNB: a comparative study

Durão

Morosolli

Dias

et al. 2016

RGO, Rev. Gaúch. Odontol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To determine intra-and inter-observer precision in Sella (S), Nasion (N), point A and B identification. Additionally, to determine how it can interfere with angular measurements of SNA and SNB by orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists. MethodsTwenty digital lateral cephalometric radiographs were evaluated by five orthodontists and five dentomaxillofacial radiologists. Results Differences in linear and RESUMO ObjetivoDeterminar a precisão intra e inter-observador na identificação dos pontos Sella (S), Násio (N), A e B. Também, verificar como a identificação dos pontos pode interferir nas medições angulares de SNA e SNB por ortodontistas e radiologistas odontológicos. MétodosVinte telerradiografias laterais digitais foram avaliadas por cinco ortodontistas e cinco radiologistas odontológicos. Diferenças de medidas lineares e angulares foram avaliadas. ResultadosConcordância intra e inter-observador foi avaliada e a reprodutibilidade intra e inter-observador dos componentes horizontais e verticais da identificação S marco (ICC: 0,75 / 0,90). Ortodontistas tenderam a produzir maior valor para SNA (-0.18º), enquanto que para o ângulo SNB houve tendência a dimininuição do valor (0.55º). Em geral, os valores obtidos para o ângulo SNA foram menores (radiologistas: -0.308º e ortodontistas: -0.092º) e SNB apresentados com valores maiores (radiologistas: -0.074º: 0.078º e ortodontistas). Concordância intra e inter-observador foi avaliada e a reprodutibilidade intra e inter-observador dos componentes horizontais e verticais da identificação S marco (ICC: 0,75 / 0,90). Ortodontistas tenderam a produzir maior valor para SNA (-0.18º), enquanto que para o ângulo SNB houve tendência a dimininuição do valor (0.55º). Em geral, os valores obtidos para o ângulo SNA foram menores (radiologistas: -0.308º e ortodontistas: -0.092º) e SNB apresentados com valores maiores (radiologistas: -0.074º: 0.078º e ortodontistas). ConclusãoA identificação do ponto Sella revelou uma melhor concordância entre os radiologistas odontológicos. Ortodontistas, no entanto, mostraram uma maior variabilidade na identificação do ponto S e, consequentemente, os ângulos SNA e SNB variaram significativamente. A identificação do ponto Sella revelou uma melhor concordância entre os radiologistas odontológicos. Ortodontistas, no entanto, mostraram uma maior variabilidade na identificação do ponto S e, consequentemente, os ângulos SNA e SNB variaram significativamente.Termos de indexação: Circunferência craniana. Estudo comparativo. Ortodontia. 264RGO, Rev Gaúch Odontol, Porto Alegre, v.64, n.3, p. 263-270, jul./set., 2016 AR DURÃO et al.

show abstract

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

Cited by 73 publications

References 19 publications

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

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

Comparative evaluation of cephalometric measurements of monitor-displayed images by Nemoceph software and its hard copy by manual tracing

Sella landmark variability and its effect on the Angles SNA and SNB: a comparative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About