Comparison of conventional and digital cepholometric measurements methods

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study were to compare the measurements obtained conventionally and digital drawings by two researchers, as well as researchers between two different drawings. Material-Method: 60 lateral cephalometric radiographs were randomly selected and 5 linear and 14 angular parameters were traced and measured by two examiners using the conventional method and Quick Ceph studio program on each radiograph. Independent samples was used to compare the mean values of intra-examiner differences. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to determine intra- and inter-examiner correlation. Results: Both operators were generally consistent in the repeated measurements; however, for one examiner, the difference for nasolabial angle measurements were found to be statistically significant(p<0.05). Intra-examiner and inter- examiner repeatabilities of measurements both with the manual and Quick Ceph techniques showed high correlation coefficients. Conclusion: The findings showed that the use of computer- assisted cephalometric analysis carried out on scanned images does not increase the measurement error when compared with conventional technique. Key words: Cephalometry, Digital radiography, Diagnosis

Keywords

• Cephalometry, digital radiography, diagnosis

Konvensiyonel ve dijital sefelometrik ölçüm yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı da konvansiyonel ve dijital lateral sefalometrik radyografiler üzerinde dijital ortamda veya elde yapılan çizimlerden elde edilen ölçümlerin araştırmacılar-arası ve araştırmacı-içi güvenilirliğinin karşılaştırılmasıdır. Materyal-metod: 60 adet lateral sefalometrik radyografi rastgele seçildi ve iki araştırmacı tarafından hem konvansiyonel hem de Quick Ceph studio programında çizilerek 5 doğrusal ve 14 açısal ölçüm elde edildi. Her bir araştırmacının yöntemler arasındaki istatistiksel değerlendirilmesinde bağımsız örnek t-testi kullanıldı. Grup içi ve gruplar arası korelasyonun belirlenmesinde grup içi korelasyon katsayısı testi kullanıldı. Bulgular: İki yöntemin karşılaştırılmasında sadece bir araştırmacının ölçtüğü nasolabial açıda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulundu. Hem Quick Ceph studio hem de konvansiyonel elde edilen ölçümlerde iki araştırmacı arasında ve araştırmacıların kendi içerisindeki tekrarlanabilirliğinde yüksek korelasyon görüldü. Sonuç: Taranmış görüntülerin kullanılmasıyla elde edilmiş bilgisayar destekli sefalometrik analiz konvansiyonel çizilerek elde edilen ölçümlerle karşılaştırıldığında ölçüm hatasını arttırmamaktadır. Anahtar kelimeler: Sefalometri, Dijital radyografi, Tanı

Keywords

• Sefalometri, dijital radyografi, tanı

References

1. Brodie AG. On the growth pattern of the human head from the third month to the eighth year of life . Am J Anat 1941; 68: 209-262.
2. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements 1. Landmark identification . Am J Orthod. 1971a; 60: 111–127.
3. Baumrind S , Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod. 1971b; 60: 505–517.
4. Ricketts RM. Perspectives in clinical application of cephalometrics. Angle Orthod. 1981; 51: 115–150.
5. Liu JK, Chen YT, Cheng KS. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000; 118: 535–540.
6. Chen SK, Chen YJ, Yao CC, Chang HF. Enhanced speed and precision of measurement in a computer-assisted digitalcephalometric analysis system. Angle Orthod. 2004a; 74: 501–507.
7. Björk A, Solow B. Measurements on radiographs . J Dent Res. 1961; 41: 672–683.
8. Houston WJB, Maher RE, McElroy D, Sherriff M. Sources of errorin measurements from cephalometric radiographs . Eur J Orthod. 1986; 8: 149–151.

9. Quintero JC, Trosien A, Hatcher D, Kapila S. Craniofacial imaging in orthodontics: historical perspective, current status, and future developments . Angle Orthod. 1999; 69: 491–506. 10. Brannan J. An introduction to digital radiography in dentistry . J Orthod. 2002; 29: 66–69.
10. Melsen B, Baumrind S. Clinical research application of cephalometry. Athanasiou A, ed. Orthodontic cephalometry, 1st ed. StLouis: Mosby-Wolfe; 1995: 181–202.
11. Houston WJB. The analysis of erors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod. 1983; 83: 382-390.
12. Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiology. Part I: advantages and limitation of digital imaging. Angle Orthod. 1996a; 66: 37–42.
13. Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S, Roberts CT. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs. Part 2: image quality. Angle Orthod. 1996b; 66: 43–50.
14. Held CL, Ferguson DJ, Gallo MW. Cephalometric digitization: a determination of the minimum scanner settings necessary for precise landmark identification. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 119: 472–481.
15. 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.
16. Onkosuwito EM, Katsaros C, van’tHof MA, Bodegom JC, Kuipers-Jagtman AM. The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements:a comparison of analogue and digital methods . Eur J Orthod. 2002; 24: 655–665.
17. Uysal T, Baysal A,Yagci A. Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses. Eur J Orthod. 2009; 31: 523–528.
18. 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.
19. Erkan M, Gurel HG, Nur M, Demirel B. Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs. Eur J Orthod. 2012; 34: 318–321.
20. Celik E, Ozsoy OP, Memikoglu UT. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2009; 31: 241–246.