Cephalometric analysis: concordance between software

Correia, Thereza Raquel Garcia Silva; Sena, Lorena Marques Ferreira de; Silva, José Sandro Pereira da; Pereira, Hallissa Simplício Gomes

doi:10.1590/1981-863720170002000063275

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The upper incisor to A-Pog (linear) again showed a statistically significant difference between the mean values obtained using the software. A similar difference for Nasion - Point A (Linear) was reported by Correia et al [ 20 ] On the contrary, Tikku et al [ 21 ] in their study comparing NemoCeph with manual also noted a statistically significant difference for L1-NB, but was comparable clinically.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Comparative evaluation of CephNinja for android and NemoCeph for computer for cephalometric analysis: A study to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CephNinja for cephalometric analysis

Kumar

Kumari²,

Chandna³

et al. 2020

J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A BSTRACT Background: Since the introduction of digitization in cephalometrics, orthodontics has experienced a new horizon. Technological advancement is usually followed by comparisons between the methods. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare values of cephalometric analysis performed by CephNinja and NemoCeph for Downs’s analysis. Settings and Design: This prospective study was conducted using 100 diagnostic digital lateral cephalograms taken from the same machine. The samples were collected by non-probability convenience sampling procedures. Materials and Methods: The diagnostic images were cropped to standard lateral cephalogram film dimension; a scale image was placed on the top for calibration, numbered 1–100 for identification and was saved in Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) format. A laptop with mouse-controlled cursor was used for NemoCeph and an android phone controlled with finger touch screen was used for CephNinja. Landmark identification for cephalometric analysis was carried out as demanded by the software. Statistical Analysis Used: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for comparison between the variables, and one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc test was carried out to check the level of significance using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software program, version 11.0. Results: The result showed that the difference of mean values obtained using the two software showed no statistical significance for 70% variables. Y -axis, incisor occlusal plane angle, and the upper incisor to A-Pog showed a statistically significant difference. Conclusion: CephNinja presented a satisfactory result with NemoCeph, and can be used interchangeably with confidence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Comparative evaluation of CephNinja for android and NemoCeph for computer for cephalometric analysis: A study to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CephNinja for cephalometric analysis

Kumar

Kumari²,

Chandna³

et al. 2020

J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[2,3] The popularly used digital tracing Software's include Dolphin Imaging, Vistadent, Nemoceph, and Quick Ceph. [4] It was found that there are no significant differences between the manual and computer-assisted cephalometric analysis except in one or two parameters [4][5][6][7] In recent years smartphone apps have taken up the role of computer software in performing cephalometric analysis. Smartphone applications are portable and available free of cost.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Accuracy and reliability of Automated tracing Android app with Conventional and Semiautomated Computer aided tracing software for cephalometric Analysis – A cross-sectional study

Paul¹,

Tania²,

Rathore³

et al. 2023

IJOrthoR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Cephalometry used as an adjuvant tool in orthodontic diagnosis has undergone significant changes from manual tracing to computer assisted digital tracing cephalometric analysis system. The smart phone apps running in android or other operating systems were introduced recently for doing cephalometric analysis. Hence this study was done comparing the accuracy and reliability of automated tracing (Webceph Android app) with gold standard manual tracing and semi-automatic tracing (NemoCeph). Materials and Methods The study was performed on 39 Pre-treatment lateral cephalograms. 10 angular and 11 linear skeletal, dental and soft tissue parameters were assessed by tracing the cephalograms manually, digitally using Nemoceph software and Webceph app. The mean and standard deviation were calculated, the overall intergroup comparisons were done using ANOVA test and individual intergroup comparisons were done by post-hoc analysis using Sidak Test. The overall interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated between the three groups. Results Angular measurements such as Occlusal plane to SN (P< 0.05) and Nasolabial angle (P< 0.05) showed significant difference between the different tracing methods and the linear parameters such as N perpendicular to Point A (P< 0.05) and Wits Appraisal (P< 0.05) showed significant difference between the different tracing methods. The overall reliability statistics showed good agreement (P<0.05) among all three groups. Conclusion Automated tracing (WebCeph) had more landmark identification errors when compared with manual or semi- automatic tracing (Nemoceph). Both WebCeph and Nemoceph were superior in their reliability when compared to manual tracing, with Nemoceph demonstrating greater efficacy compared to WebCeph.

show abstract

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

Cephalometric analysis: concordance between software

Abstract: ConclusionThe software can be interchangeably applied in clinical practice.

Cited by 3 publications

References 10 publications

Comparative evaluation of CephNinja for android and NemoCeph for computer for cephalometric analysis: A study to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CephNinja for cephalometric analysis

Comparative evaluation of CephNinja for android and NemoCeph for computer for cephalometric analysis: A study to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CephNinja for cephalometric analysis

Comparison of Accuracy and reliability of Automated tracing Android app with Conventional and Semiautomated Computer aided tracing software for cephalometric Analysis – A cross-sectional study

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About