Comparison of Digital and Manual Methods Used in the Analysis of Cephalometric Radiographs

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 3, 241 - 250, 26.01.2024

Ayla Yılmaz Fethiye Çakmak Özlü

https://doi.org/10.58711/turkishjdentres.vi.1407334

Cited By: 1

Öz

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of digital cephalometric tracing and conventional hand-tracing methods
Material and Method: Three hundred pretreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs were included in the study. Pretreatment digital cephalometric radiographs were traced using Nemoceph Dental Studio NX Pro 10.4.2 software programs and by hand tracing of the printouts. Twenty-four anatomic points were identified by the same investigator and 12 skeletal, 10 dental and 3 soft tissue parameters were measured. All measurements were repeated on the randomlyselected 75 radiographs by the same investigator after 1 month interval. For each method, Test-retest and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated to determine the consistence
of all measured values between intrainvestigator reliability and methods. The reproducibility between methods was calculated by paired t-test. The level of statistical significance was set at p<0.05.
Results: The intra-investigator reliability for all measurements were upon 0.90 ICC (strong correlation) for
both methods. Significant differences between the two methods were observed for all angular and linear measurements except for L1-NB angle (p=0,061) and Nasolabial angle (p=0,777). Among these methods, good consistence was observed in all measurements except for the Gonial angle (ICC = 0.751) and
Nasolabial angle(ICC = 0.780).
Conclusion: According to the results of this study, both
methods of digital and manuel methods are highly reliable.
Although there is a statistically significant difference between
the reproducibility of the two

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cephalometry; , Manual tracing; , Digital Tracing; Reliability; , Reproducibility.

Sefalometrik Radyografilerin Analizlerinde Kullanılan Dijital ve Manuel Metotların Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, dijital sefalometrik çizim ve konvansiyonel manuel çizim metotlarının, güvenilirlik ve tekrar edilebilirliğinin değerlendirilmesidir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Üç yüz adet ortodontik tedavi öncesi dijital lateral sefalometrik radyograf çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Dijital çizim metodu Nemoceph Dental Studio NX Pro 10.4.2 çizim programı ile manuel çizim metodu ise dijital radyografların çıktıları üzerinde uygulanmıştır. Analiz için 24 anatomik nokta tanımlanmış ve 12 iskeletsel, 10 dişsel ve
3 yumuşak doku parametresi ölçülmüştür. Bütün ölçümler, rastgele seçilmiş 75 radyografi üzerinde, 1 ay aralıkla aynı araştırmacı tarafından tekrar yapılmıştır. Her bir metot için araştırmacı içi güvenilirlik ve metotlar arasında tüm ölçüm değerlerinin uyumunu belirlemek için Test-tekrar test ve sınıf
içi korelasyon katsayısı hesaplanmıştır. Metotlar arası tekrar edilebilirlik Paired Sample T testi kullanılarak hesaplanmıştır. İstatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyi p<0.05 olarak belirlenmiştir.
Bulgular: Her iki metot için araştırmacı içi güvenirlik tüm ölçümlerde sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı 0,90’ın üzerindedir (güçlü korelasyon). L1-NB açısı (p=0,061) ve Nasolabial açı (p=0,777) haricinde açısal ve doğrusal ölçümlerin çoğunda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık bulunmuştur. Metotlar arasında, Gonial açı (SKK=0,751) ve Nasolabial açı (SKK=0,780) haricinde tüm ölçümlerde iyi bir uyum gözlenmiştir.
Sonuç: Çalışmamızın sonuçlarına göre, dijital ve manuel sefalometrik analiz metotlarının her ikisinde de
yüksek güvenilirlik bulunmuştur. İki metot arasında tekrar edilebilirlikler arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık görülmesine rağmen, farklılıkların çoğu klinik olarak anlamlı değildir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sefalometri , Dijital çizim , Manuel çizim , Güvenilirlik; , Tekrarlanabilirlik.

Etik Beyan

Kocaeli Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Girişimsel Olmayan Klinik Araştırmalar Etik Kurulundan 11.05.2016 tarih ve 2016/141 sayılı etik kurul onayı alındı.

Kaynakça

• 1. Phulari B. An atlas on cephalometric landmarks: JP Medical Ltd; 2013.
• 2. Brennan J. An introduction to digital radiography in dentistry. Journal of Orthodontics. 2002;29(1):66-9.
• 3. Carlos Quintero J, Trosien A, Hatcher D, Kapila S. Craniofacial imaging in orthodontics: historical perspective, current status, and future developments. The Angle Orthodontist. 1999;69(6):491-506.
• 4. Näslund E, Kruger M, Petersson A, Hansen K. Analysis of low-dose digital lateral cephalometric radiographs. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 1998;27(3):136-9.
• 5. Houston W. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. American journal of orthodontics. 1983;83(5):382-90.
• 6. Midtgård J, Björk G, Linder-Aronson S. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks and errors of measurements of cephalometric cranial distances. The Angle Orthodontist. 1974;44(1):56-61.
• 7. Rudolph D, Sinclair P, Coggins J. Automatic computerized radiographic identification of cephalometric landmarks. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1998;113(2):173-9.
• 8. Gregston MD, Kula T, Hardman P, Glaros A, Kula K, editors. A comparison of conventional and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software: I. hard tissue. Seminars in Orthodontics; 2004: Elsevier.
• 9. Macri V, Wenzel A. Reliability of landmark recording on film and digital lateral cephalograms. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 1993;15(2):137-48.
• 10. Nimkarn Y, Miles P. Reliability of computer-generated cephalometrics. The International journal of adult orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. 1995;10(1):43-52.
• 11. Ongkosuwito E, Katsaros C, Van’t Hof M, Bodegom J, Kuijpers‐Jagtman A. The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of analogue and digital methods. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2002;24(6):655-65.
• 12. Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun T. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2007;29(1):105-8.
• 13. Liu J-K, Chen Y-T, Cheng K-S. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2000;118(5):535-40.
• 14. Chen Y-J, Chen S-K, Chung-Chen Yao J, Chang H-F. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. The Angle orthodontist. 2004;74(2):155-61.
• 15. Oliver RG. Cephalometric analysis comparing five different methods. British Journal of orthodontics. 1991;18(4):277- 83.
• 16. Power G, Breckon J, Sherriff M, McDonald F. Dolphin Imaging Software: an analysis of the accuracy of cephalometric digitization and orthognathic prediction. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2005;34(6):619-26.
• 17. Kublashvili T, Kula K, Glaros A, Hardman P, Kula T, editors. A comparison of conventional and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software: II. Soft tissue. Seminars in Orthodontics; 2004: Elsevier.
• 18. Celik E, Polat-Ozsoy O, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2009;31(3):241-6.
• 19. Sandler P. Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements. British journal of orthodontics. 1988;15(2):105-10.
• 20. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF, Chen KC. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computeraided digital cephalometry. The Angle orthodontist. 2000;70(5):387-92.
• 21. Hagemann K, Vollmer D, Niegel T, Ehmer U, Reuter I. Prospective study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional and digital lateral headfilms. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics/Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie. 2000;61(2):91-9.
• 22. Geelen W, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E, Kruger M, Hansson L. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional film, hardcopy, and monitor-displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 1998;20(3):331-40.
• 23. Naoumova J, Lindman R. A comparison of manual traced images and corresponding scanned radiographs digitally traced. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2009;31(3):247-53.
• 24. Polat-Ozsoy O, Gokcelik A, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2009;31(3):254-9.
• 25. İşeri H, Açıkbaş A, Yılmaz O. Bilgisayar metodu ve geleneksel metod ile yapılan sefalometrik ölçümlerin hassasiyet, tekrarlanabilirlik ve zaman açısından değerlendirilmesi. Türk Ortod Derg 1992;5: 1-6.
• 26. Sarı Z, Başçiftçi FA, Uysal T, Malkoç S. Üç farklı sefalometrik film çizim yönteminde araştırıcılar ve tekniklerin karşılaştırılması. Türk Ortod Derg 2002;15(2):99-107.
• 27. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements: 1. Landmark identification. American journal of orthodontics. 1971;60(2):111-27.
• 28. Sekiguchi T, Savara BS. Variability of cephalometric landmarks used for face growth studies. American journal of orthodontics. 1972;61(6):603-18.
• 29. Santoro M, Jarjoura K, Cangialosi TJ. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2006;129(3):345-51.
• 30. Bruntz LQ, Palomo JM, Baden S, Hans MG. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2006;130(3):340-8.
• 31. Uysal T, Baysal A, Yagci A. Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2009;31(5):523-8.