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

Abstract

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.

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

“…The difference of mean values of the observed data using the NemoCeph and CephNinja software was 1°–2° for 70% of the variables and was comparable clinically with no statistically significant difference between the two. This was in consonance with the previous results of Rusa et al ,[ 17 ] Nouri et al , [ 18 ] and Kumar et al [ 19 ] On the contrary, the mean differences of Y -axis and incisor occlusal plane angle using the two software were 37° and 6°, respectively. This mean difference showed a statistically significant difference.…”