Comparison of Reliability and Validity of Posteroanterior Cephalometric Measurements Obtained from AutoCEPH© and Dolphin® Cephalometric Software Programs with Manual Tracing

Abstract

The objective of this study is to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of linear and angular cephalometric measurements obtained from two computerized cephalometric analysis software programs, namely AutoCEPH © (version 2.1.1) and Dolphin ® (version 11.9) as compared to manual tracings in posteroanterior (PA) cephalometry. Materials and Methods: Sixty pretreatment (PA) cephalograms were selected from the database of a postgraduate orthodontic clinic. The digital images of each cephalogram were imported directly into two softwares Dolphin ® and AutoCEPH © for digitization. For manual tracings, digital images were printed using an X-ray printer (Drystar 5302, Agfa HealthCare NV, Mortsel, Belgium). After images were standardized and calibrated, 19 anatomical landmarks were plotted on each cephalogram. These landmarks were then utilized to evaluate 17 cephalometric parameters. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine both intrarater reliability for repeated measurements and agreement between linear and angular measurements obtained from the three methods. Results: High ICC values in the range of 0.813-0.998 were obtained for all parameters while comparing three methods, i.e., manual tracings versus AutoCEPH © ; manual tracings versus Dolphin ® ; and AutoCEPH © versus Dolphin®. Conclusion: A high level of agreement (ICC >0.8) for cephalometric measurements was obtained from both the computerized softwares Dolphin ® and AutoCEPH © in comparison with manual tracings.

Reliability of Software Prediction of Post Orthodontic Treatment Changes

“…When predicted and actual post-treatment values of interincisal angle, U1-SN, U1-NA (mm), U1-NA (deg), LI-NB (mm), LI-NB (deg), U1-PP (deg), and IMPA were compared, it was found that significant difference was found for all the parameters except UI-SN and UI-PP showing that the software prediction was accurate for changes occurring in only these two parameters. Similar results were found in the study done by Izabella, 22 Thomas, 23 and Lew. 18…”

“…When predicted and actual post-treatment values of interincisal angle, U1-SN, U1-NA (mm), U1-NA (deg), LI-NB (mm), LI-NB (deg), U1-PP (deg), and IMPA were compared, it was found that significant difference was found for all the parameters except UI-SN and UI-PP showing that the software prediction was accurate for changes occurring in only these two parameters. Similar results were found in the study done by Izabella, 22 Thomas, 23 and Lew. 18 The inaccuracy in prediction of incisor inclination might be attributed to the difficulty faced during placement of the tooth while using treatment simulation module in the software or due to failure of the clinician to attain the desired objective.…”

A Comparison of Smartphone-assisted and Computer Software Assisted Tracing with the Conventional Manual Method

“…When manual tracing and AutoCeph® groups were compared, most of the parameters (Table 3) showed a positive agreement, which shows that AutoCeph® can be used instead of manual tracing, as it is user-friendly, time saving, and makes work easier, which is similar to the study by Sangroula et al 13 The results of this study when comparing manual method with the NemoCeph® (Table 3) cephalometric tracing showed a similar conclusion as that reported by Francisco et al 23 The results showed that NemoCeph® may be used with reliability to make cephalometric measurements. There is no significant difference between the manual and Nemoceph® for most of the linear and angular cephalometric parameters.…”

“…Many studies have examined the performance of commercially available software and mobile apps used for cephalometric analysis. 13 Mobile applications have the potential to advance dentistry. Orthodontic clinicians and patients have employed a variety of smartphone apps relevant to orthodontics.…”

Comparación entre trazados cefalométricos manual y digital en radiografías laterales del cráneo

“…Lalakiya y col. 5 compararon el trazado manual con el digital mediante el uso del software FACAD cuyos resultados mostraron diferencia significativa en seis de dieciocho medidas analizadas, siendo ellas el ángulo facial, ángulo oclusal -SN, inclinación del plano oclusal, ángulo Go -Gn a SN, plano Ar -Go y el ángulo interincisal, siendo ese último un resultado similar a este estudio. Sangroula y col., 16 evaluaron la confiabilidad y precisión de mediciones cefalométricas lineales y angulares comparando los programas AutoCEPH y Dolphin con el método de rastreo manual, en 17 parámetros cefalométricos. Para ello, evaluaron el CCI con un resultado de 0,813-0,998 en todos los parámetros al comparar los tres métodos.…”