Comparison of Cephalometric Measurements of On-Screen Images by CephX Software and Hard-Copy Printouts by Conventional Manual Tracing
Newer diagnostic methods have become widespread in medicine nowadays as a result of extraordinary advancements in the field of electronics. On computers, various orthodontic programs are available as software. When it comes to orthodontics, diagnosis is critical, with the radiographic study being the most important phase. The goal of this research was to assess the level of liability of direct digital radiograph tracing using CephX and compare with hand tracing digital printouts and evaluate the two techniques concerning measurement reproducibility of individual methods. The material consisted of 25 digital lateral cephalometric images, fourteen linear and angular parameters were measured by a single operator digitally and manually. The intraclass correlation coefficient and confidence interval were used to compare the difference of the measurements obtained from manual and digital tracings, and intra-examiner error was evaluated by the coefficient of variation. A comparison of hand and CephX tracing showed a low level of agreement in the anterior facial height, anterior and posterior cranial base length. Only of (LI to A-Pog) line for both manual and digital methods showed poor intra-examiner duplicability. Thus, it can be concluded that digital tracing with CephX is adequate for clinical uses and similar to manual cephalometric tracings.
Keywords: CephX software, on-screen, printouts, duplicability, cephalometric.
BRODIE A. On the growth pattern of the human head. From the third month to the eighth year of life. American Journal of Anatomy, 1941, 68(2): 209-262. https://doi.org/10.1002/aja.1000680204
BAUMRIND S., & FRANTZ R. C. The reliability of head film measurements 1. Journal of Anatomy, 1971, 60(2): 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90028-5
BAUMRIND S., & FRANTZ R. C. The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. American Journal of Anatomy, 1971, 60(5): 505-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90116-3
RICKETTS R. M. Perspectives in the clinical application of cephalometrics. The first fifty years. The Angle Orthodontist, 1981, 51(2): 115-150. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1981)051%3C0115:pitcao%3E2.0.co;2
SANDLER P. J. Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements. Journal of Orthodontics, 1988, 15(2): 105-110. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.15.2.105
POLAT-OZSOY O., GOKCELIK A., and TOYGAR MEMIKOGLU T. U. Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods. European Journal of Orthodontics, 2009, 31(3): 254-259. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn121
QUINTERO J. C., TROSIEN A., HATCHER D., and KAPILA S. Craniofacial imaging in orthodontics: historical perspective, current status, and future developments. The Angle Orthodontist, 1999, 69(6): 491-506. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0491:CIIOHP>2.3.CO;2
BRENNAN J. An introduction to digital radiography in dentistry. Journal of Orthodontics, 2002, 29(1): 66-69. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/29.1.66
SAYINSU K., ISIK F., TRAKYALI G., and ARUN T. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. European Journal of Orthodontics, 2007, 29(1): 105-108. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjl065
SINGH P., & DAVIES T. I. A comparison of cephalometric measurements: a picture archiving and communication system versus the hand-tracing method--a preliminary study. European Journal of Orthodontics, 2011, 33(4): 350-353. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq087
SANTORO M., JARJOURA K., and CANGIALOSI T. J. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2006, 129(3): 345-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.010
ONGKOSUWITO E. M., KATSAROS C., VAN'T HOF M. A., BODEGOM J. C., and KUIJPERS-JAGTMAN A. M. The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of analogue and digital methods. European Journal of Orthodontics, 2002, 24(6): 655-665. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/24.6.655
NIMKARN Y., & MILES P. G. Reliability of computer-generated cephalometrics. The International Journal of Adult Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery, 1995, 10(1): 43-52. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9081992/
KUBLASHVILI T., KULA K., GLAROS A., HARDMAN P., and KULA T. A comparison of conventional and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software: II. soft tissue. Seminars in Orthodontics, 2004, 10(3): 212-219. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2004.05.005
HOUSTON W. J., MAHER R. E., MCELROY D., and SHERRIFF M. Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. European Journal of Orthodontics, 1986, 8(3): 149-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/8.3.149
BRUNTZ L. Q., PALOMO J. M., BADEN S., and HANS M. G. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs. American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2006, 130(3): 340-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.029
HOUSTON W. J. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. American Journal of Orthodontics, 1983, 83(5): 382-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(83)90322-6
KISH L. Cluster sampling and subsampling. In: Survey sampling. Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1995: 170–173.
KIRKWOOD B., & STERNE J. Analysis of numerical outcome. In: Essentials of medical statistics (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing Limited, Oxford, 2001: 50–80.
MACHIN D., CAMPBELL M. J., and WALTERS S. J. Reliability and method comparison studies. In: Medical statistics: textbook for the health sciences (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Oxford, 2007: 202–213.
GEELEN W., WENZEL A., GOTFREDSEN E., KRUGER M., and HANSSON L. G. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional film, hardcopy, and monitor-displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique. European Journal of Orthodontics, 1998, 20(3): 331-40. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/20.3.331
CHEN Y. J., CHEN S. K., CHANG H. F., and CHEN K. C. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. The Angle Orthodontist, 2000, 70(5): 387-392. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2000)070<0387:COLIIT>2.0.CO;2
GREGSTON M. D., KULA T., HARDMAN P., GLAROS A., and KULA K. A comparison of conventional and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software: I. hard tissue. Seminars in Orthodontics, 2004, 10(3): 204-211. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2004.05.004
TSOROVAS G., & KARSTEN A. L. A comparison of hand-tracing and cephalometric analysis computer programs with and without advanced features--accuracy and time demands. European Journal of Orthodontics, 2010, 32(6): 721-728. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq009
SINGH P., & DAVIES I. D. A comparison of cephalometric measurements: a picture archiving and communication system versus the hand-tracing method—a preliminary study. European Journal of Orthodontics, 2011, 33(4): 350-353. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq087
LIM K. F., & FOONG K. W. Phosphor-stimulated computed cephalometry: reliability of landmark identification. British Journal of Orthodontics, 1997, 24(4): 301-308. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/24.4.301
TIKKU T., KHANNA R., MAURYA R. P., SRIVASTAVA K., and BHUSHAN R. Comparative evaluation of cephalometric measurements of monitor-displayed images by Nemoceph software and its hard copy by manual tracing. Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research, 2014, 4(1): 35-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2013.11.002
CELIK E., POLAT-OZSOY O., and TOYGAR MEMIKOGLU T. U. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. European Journal of Orthodontics, 2009, 31(3): 241-246. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn105
AGARWAL N., BAGGA D. K., and SHARMA P. A comparative study of cephalometric measurements with digital versus manual methods. The Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society, 2011, 45(2): 84-90. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10021-1014
SEKIGUCHI T., & SAVARA B. S. Variability of cephalometric landmarks used for face growth studies. American Journal of Orthodontics, 1972, 61(6): 603-618. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(72)90109-1
- There are currently no refbacks.