Comparison of Speed and Precision of Manual Viz a Viz Computer Assisted Cephalometric Measurements

Jump To References Section

Authors

  • Gagan D. Kochar
     Military Dental Center, Jabalpur ,IN
  • Balakrishna Jayan
     Research & Referral Hospital, New Delhi ,IN
  • Sukhbir S. Chopra
     Armed Forces Medical College, Pune ,IN
  • Munish Verma
     Armed Forces Medical College, Pune ,IN
  • Abhijeet Kadu
     Research & Referral Hospital, New Delhi ,IN
  • Sweta Singh
     Modern Dental College, Indore ,IN

Keywords:

Digital Cephalometry, Radiographs, Cephalometric Software
Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology

Abstract

Objectives: The present study was undertaken for comparing measurements of various cephalometric parameters obtained by hand tracing method with those obtained by computerized software on direct digital lateral cephalograms and scanned lateral cephalograms so as to determine the validity of tracing methods and time required.

Methods: The study sample comprised of hard and soft copy of 100 digital lateral cephalometric radiographs from archives. The study sample was divided into three groups, Group A e comprised of hard copy of radiographs which were traced manually, Group B - comprised of direct digital images and Group C - comprised of scanned images. Both were traced using cephalometric software NemoCeph NX 2006. 18 cephalometric parameters were evaluated.

Result: 30 cephalograms were traced in each group. After ascertaining intra operator reliability rest of the cephalograms were traced. On comparing different groups, statistically significant differences were found for various parameters but the differences were not clinically significant.

Conclusion: The validity and reproducibility of various cephalometric parameters by manual tracing and software tracing of direct digital images and scanned images of lateral cephalogram were found to be highly correlated. In comparison to manual method, tracing using cephalometric software provides a significant time advantage.

Downloads

Published

2018-09-10

How to Cite

Kochar, G. D., Jayan, B., Chopra, S. S., Verma, M., Kadu, A., & Singh, S. (2018). Comparison of Speed and Precision of Manual Viz a Viz Computer Assisted Cephalometric Measurements. Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (India Section), 29(1), 11–20. Retrieved from https://informaticsjournals.co.in/index.php/jpfa/article/view/22199

Issue

Volume 29, Issue 1, March 2015

Section

Original Articles

License

All the articles published in JPFA are distributed under a creative commons license. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright of their work (all usages allowed except for commercial purpose).

 

References

Hofrath H. DieBedeutung der Rontgenfern und Abstandsaufnahmefur die Diagnostik der Kieferanomalien. Fortschr Orthod. 1931;1:231-258.

Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontics. Angle Orthod. 1931;1:45-66.

Chen SK, Chen YJ, Yao CCJ, Chang HF. Enhanced speed and precision of measurement in a computer-assisted digital cephalometric analysis system. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:501-507.

Jackson PH, Dickson GC, Birnie DJ. Digital image processing of cephalometric radiographs: a preliminary report. Br J Orthod. 1985;12:122-132.

Cohen AM, Linney AD. A low cost system for computed-based cephalometric analysis. Br J Orthod. 1986;13:105-118.

Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiography, part 1: advantages and limitations of digital imaging. Angle Orthod. 1996;66:37-42.

Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF, Chen KC. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2000;70:387-392.

Macri V, Wenzel A. Reliability of landmark recording on film and digital lateral cephalograms. Eur J Orthod. 1993;15:137-148.

Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yao JCC, Chang HF. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:155-161.

Santoro M, Jarjoura K, Cangialosi TJ. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:345-351.

Ozsoy OP, Gokcelik A, Memikoglu TUT. Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31:254-259.

Bruntz LQ, Palomo JM, Baden S, Hans MG. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:340-348.

MacMahon H, Doi K, Sanada S. Data compression: effect on diagnostic accuracy in digital chest radiography. Radiology. 1991;178:175-179.

Goldberg MA, Pivovarov M, Mayo-Smith WW, et al. Application of wavelet compression to digital radiographs. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;163:463-468.

Ongkosuwito EM, Katsaros C, Hof MAV, Bodegom JC, Jagtman AMK. The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of analogue and digital methods. Eur J Orthod. 2002;24:655-665.

Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun T. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29:105-108.

Thijssen M. Bepaling en bewaking van de beeldkwaliteit in de radiodiagnostiek [Definition and control of image quality in radiographic diagnostics] [PhD Thesis]. Netherlands: Universiteitsdrukkerij KUN; 1993.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.

Luiz RR, Costa AJL, Kale PL, Werneck GL. Assessment of agreement of a quantitative variable: a new graphical approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:963-967.

Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of headfilm measurementse2. Conventional angular and linear measurements. Am J Ortho. 1971;60:505-517.

Gregston MD, Kula T, Hardman P, Glaros A, Kula K. A comparison of conventional and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software: I. Hard tissue. Semin Orthod. 2004;10:204-211.

Sekiguchi T, Savara BS. Variability of cephalometrc landmarks used for face growth studies. Am J Orthod. 1972;61:603-618.