An Evaluation of the Errors in Cephalometric Measurements on Scanned Lateral Cephalometric Images using Computerized Cephalometric Program and Conventional Tracings

Ganna, Priteshkumar Sureshchand; Shetty, Sharath Kumar; Yethadka, Mahesh Kumar; Ansari, Akram

doi:10.1177/0974909820140605s

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…17 , 27 , 28 Precision and reproducibility in data is an essential requirement. 7 Durao et al reported a lower level of reproducibility in landmarks identification among orthodontists compared to maxillofacial radiologist. 29 The current study compared the mean difference of the values obtained using the two software, i.e., Nemoceph and Foxit PDF Reader.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Nemoceph and Foxit PDF Reader for Steiner\'s Cephalometric Analysis

Kumar

Kumari

Shetty

et al. 2019

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the values of Steiner's cephalometric analysis using Nemoceph and Foxit PDF Reader. No significant difference between the two methods will result in that Foxit PDF Reader can be used as a cost-effective alternative. Materials and methods: This study was conducted on 100 digital lateral cephalograms taken from the same machine. The samples were collected by nonprobability convenience sampling procedures. These images were analyzed for Steiner's cephalometric analysis using two software packages. Results: The skeletal and dental values showed no statistically significant difference in the majority, except for the L1-NA (linear) and L1-NB (linear). Conclusion:Results showed that there is a high agreement between the two methods. Clinical significance: This article provides a simple and cost-effective method of onscreen cephalometric analysis. This technique uses the inbuilt measurement tools in the tool bar of our daily use software. The method can be used independently anywhere without any internet connection and software subscription.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Nemoceph and Foxit PDF Reader for Steiner\'s Cephalometric Analysis

Kumar

Kumari

Shetty

et al. 2019

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However contrary to our findings regarding these six parameters, Izgi et al 22 found significant value for ANS-Me, Co-Pt.A, Co-Gn and found that problem in landmark identification was the reason behind this. Similarly, Ganna et al 19 found significant value for FMIA, IMPA and found problem in identifying lower incisor apex due to superimposition of structures and FH plane. Remaining 8 parameters (N-ANS, A-Pog, S-N, FMA, SNA, SNB, ANB and Facial angle) were statistically significant in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Similar non-significant findings were reported by Shahakbari et al 18 for the value of ANS-Me, Mahto et al 3 for Co-Pt. A, Ganna et al 19 for Co-Gn, Cavdar et al 20 for facial axis, Farooq et al 21 for FMIA and Gregston et al 5 for IMPA. However contrary to our findings regarding these six parameters, Izgi et al 22 found significant value for ANS-Me, Co-Pt.A, Co-Gn and found that problem in landmark identification was the reason behind this.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of reliability & reproducibility of cephalometric measurements obtained from computerised software (CS8100SC) compared with manual tracing

Pragya

Sood²,

Mahajan³

et al. 2023

JCO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study has been done to compare fourteen cephalometric measurements collected from computerized tracing of digital radiographs followed by manual tracing of the same to check their reliability and reproducibility.Pretreatment lateral cephalograms of fifty subjects were taken, on which fourteen cephalometric measurements were traced. Ten randomly selected cephalograms were retraced by the same operator both manually and digitally.Out of fourteen parameters, eight parameters (N-ANS, S-N, A-Pog, Facial angle, FMA, SNA, SNB and ANB) showed statistically significant differences between the two techniques but were clinically acceptable whereas six parameters did not show any significant differences. Digital measurements obtained from CS8100SC software were reliable for all except ANB. Reproducibility between both the tracing was good except for ANB, Facial axis, Facial angle and FMIA.CS8100SC Imaging software program can be brought into play for cephalometric measurements.

show abstract

“…De acuerdo con Trpkova et al 3 sobre la base de un análisis de modelo de efectos aleatorios unidireccionales, las mediciones del eje Y muestran una variabilidad moderada a través de los estudios (valor p = 0,089), mientras que en el eje X las mediciones muestran una variabilidad significativa (valor p = 0,024). En su investigación, recomiendan que 0,59 mm de error total para la coordenada X y 0,56 mm para la coordenada Y sean considerados como niveles aceptables de precisión 5,12,17 . Al compararlo con esta investigación, observamos que la tendencia de mayor discrepancia estuvo asociada con el eje Y.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Precisión en identificación de puntos cefalométricos asistido por computadora: caso residentes de postgrado ortodoncia de la Universidad de Carabobo

Rotundo

Uzcátegui

Castillo

et al. 2021

OdousUC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

El objetivo de esta investigación fue establecer la precisión en la identificación de puntos cefalométricos de los residentes del postgrado de ortodoncia UC. Se utilizaron 10 radiografías digitalizadas seleccionadas aleatoriamente para ser analizadas mediante trazado asistido por computadora (software Odomax) por 7 residentes del primer año y un ortodoncista como control. Se computaron las coordenadas de la localización de los puntos cefalométricos: S, Na, A, B, Go y Gn. Se realizaron gráficas de dispersión 2D y elipses con 95% de confianza. Se evaluó la precisión en la localización de los puntos cefalométricos y el límite preestablecido de tolerancia clínica fue de 2 mm. Se reportó mayor dispersión en sentido vertical en los puntos Na (-2,031 mm), A (-1,028mm) y B (0,262mm); mientras que en sentido horizontal S (0,0504mm) y Gn (-3,63mm). El patrón de Gonion fue totalmente disperso en ambos ejes (-2,232mm). Se concluye que la identificación de puntos cefalométricos mediante el trazado asistido por computadora no mostró precisión en el grupo de residentes evaluados. Valores de precisión clínicamente aceptable se encontraron solamente en el punto Silla.

show abstract

An Evaluation of the Errors in Cephalometric Measurements on Scanned Lateral Cephalometric Images using Computerized Cephalometric Program and Conventional Tracings

Abstract: Aim and objective: The aim of this study was to compare the cephalometric measurements using Nemoceph software with manual tracings. Materials and methods: The sample consisted of 60 lateral Cephalometric radiographs of patients randomly selected from the existing records of patients of

Cited by 6 publications

References 18 publications

Comparative Evaluation of Nemoceph and Foxit PDF Reader for Steiner\'s Cephalometric Analysis

Comparative Evaluation of Nemoceph and Foxit PDF Reader for Steiner\'s Cephalometric Analysis

Evaluation of reliability & reproducibility of cephalometric measurements obtained from computerised software (CS8100SC) compared with manual tracing

Precisión en identificación de puntos cefalométricos asistido por computadora: caso residentes de postgrado ortodoncia de la Universidad de Carabobo

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About