A comparison of angle measure reproducibility between manual and computerized tracing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfo.11748Keywords:
Cephalometry, Reproductibility of results, Radiography, Radiographic imaging by dual photon emissionAbstract
Introduction: digital cephalometry allows handling errors produced during manual tracing; the purpose of this study was therefore to evaluate the reproducibility and precision of angle measures between manual tracing and that obtained with Cephapoint in digital radiography. Methods: 11 direct digital radiographs taken to orthodontics students were introduced in the Cephapoint computer program. 9 angles were measured in both hand-tracing digital radiography and Cephapoint. All measurements were made by 3 operators with 1-week interval. We calculated the average interobserver error to find the reproducibility of each angle measure, and the average intra-observer error to determine the accuracy of each observer. Results: the FH/N/Pg angle showed the smallest interobserver error difference (0.10°) in both methods, favoring manual tracing. On the other hand, the angles with the smallest inter-observer error difference in computerized tracing were LI-NB (0.11°) and N-A/Pg (0.11°). Intraobserver reproducibility showed excellent Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) in both methods. Conclusions: reproducibility of angular measurements did not show significant differences between manual and computerized tracing. According to the findings of this study, the methods under evaluation offer equal diagnostic validity.
Downloads
References
De Araújo P, Nascimento J, Mesquita F, Nery E. A comparative study of manual vs. computerized cephalometric analysis. Dental Press J Orthod 2010; 15(2): 44-51.
Steiner C. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953; 39(10): 729-755.
Legan HL, Burstone CJ. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1980; 38(10): 744-751.
Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan H, Murphy GA, Norton LA. Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1978; 36(4): 269-277.
McNamara JA Jr. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod 1984; 86(6): 449-469.
Sassouni V. A classification of skeletal facial types. Am J Orthod 1969; 55(2): 109-123.
Dana JM, Goldstein M, Burch JG, Hartigan PC. Comparative study of manual and computerized cephalometric analyses. J Clin Orthod 2004; 38(5): 293-296.
Roden-Johnson D, English J, Gallerano R. Comparison of hand-traced and computerized cephalograms: landmark identification, measurement, and superimposition accuracy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133(4): 556-564.
McClure SR, Sadowsky LP, Ferreira A, Jacobson A. Reliability of digital versus conventional cephalometric radiology: a comparative evaluation of landmark identification error. Semin Orthod 2005; 11(2): 98-110.
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(3): 340-348.
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(1): 105-108.
Swennen GR, Grimaldi H, Berten JL, Kramer FJ, Dempf R, Schwestka-Polly R et al.. Reliability and validity of a modified lateral cephalometric analysis for evaluation of craniofacial morphology and growth in patients with clefts. J Craniofac Surg 2004; 15(3): 399-412.
Polat-Ozsoy O, Gokcelik A, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31(3): 254-259.
Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yao JC, Chang HF. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod 2004; 74(2): 155-161.
Richardson A. A comparison of traditional and computerized methods of cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod 1981; 3(1): 15-20.
Sandler PJ. Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements. Br J Orthod 1988; 15(2): 105-110.
Bonilla M, Barrera J, Gutiérrez D, Paredes M, Puentes J. Comparación del error en la ubicación de puntos cefalométricos entre una imagen digital directa y una convencional. Revista Científica Sociedad Colombiana de Ortodoncia 2011; 18(17): 63-71.
Lim KF, Foong KW. Phosphor-stimulated computed cephalometry: reliability of landmark identification. Br J Orthod 1997; 24(4): 301-308.
Collins J, Shah A, McCarthy C, Sandler J. Comparison of measurements from photographed lateral cephalograms and scanned cephalograms. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132(6): 830-833.
Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF, Chen KC. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry Angle Orthod 2000; 70(5): 387-392.
Geelen W, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E, Kruger M, Hansson LG. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional film, hardcopy, and monitor-displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20(3): 331-340.
Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971; 60(2): 111-127.
Bonilla MM, Barrera JP, Arroyave ÁP, Díaz ME. Reproducibilidad en la ubicación de puntos cefalométricos de tejidos blandos en radiografías convencionales y digitales directas. Rev Fac Odontol Univ Antioq 2013; 25(1): 76-91.
Yu SH, Nahm DS, Baek SH. Reliability of landmark identification on monitor-displayed lateral cephalometric images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133(6): 790.
Hwang HS, Kim WS, McNamara JA Jr. A comparative study of two methods of quantifying the soft tissue profile. Angle Orthod 2000; 70(3): 200-207.
Park YC, Burstone CJ. Soft-tissue profile —fallacies of hard-tissue standards in treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1986; 90(1): 52-62.
Nanda RS, Meng H, Kapila S, Goorhuis J. Growth changes in the soft tissue facial profile. Angle Orthod 1990; 60(3): 177-190.
Formby WA, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Longitudinal changes in the adult facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 105(5): 464-476.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2014 Revista Facultad de Odontología Universidad de Antioquia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright Notice
Copyright comprises moral and patrimonial rights.
1. Moral rights: are born at the moment of the creation of the work, without the need to register it. They belong to the author in a personal and unrelinquishable manner; also, they are imprescriptible, unalienable and non negotiable. Moral rights are the right to paternity of the work, the right to integrity of the work, the right to maintain the work unedited or to publish it under a pseudonym or anonymously, the right to modify the work, the right to repent and, the right to be mentioned, in accordance with the definitions established in article 40 of Intellectual property bylaws of the Universidad (RECTORAL RESOLUTION 21231 of 2005).
2. Patrimonial rights: they consist of the capacity of financially dispose and benefit from the work trough any mean. Also, the patrimonial rights are relinquishable, attachable, prescriptive, temporary and transmissible, and they are caused with the publication or divulgation of the work. To the effect of publication of articles in the journal Revista de la Facultad de Odontología, it is understood that Universidad de Antioquia is the owner of the patrimonial rights of the contents of the publication.
The content of the publications is the exclusive responsibility of the authors. Neither the printing press, nor the editors, nor the Editorial Board will be responsible for the use of the information contained in the articles.
I, we, the author(s), and through me (us), the Entity for which I, am (are) working, hereby transfer in a total and definitive manner and without any limitation, to the Revista Facultad de Odontología Universidad de Antioquia, the patrimonial rights corresponding to the article presented for physical and digital publication. I also declare that neither this article, nor part of it has been published in another journal.
Open Access Policy
The articles published in our Journal are fully open access, as we consider that providing the public with free access to research contributes to a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Creative Commons License
The Journal offers its content to third parties without any kind of economic compensation or embargo on the articles. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license, known as Attribution – NonCommercial – Share Alike (BY-NC-SA), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited and that the new productions are licensed under the same conditions.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
