Aguilar-Hernández M, de Alba-Cruz I

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 244-246
PDF size: 167.86 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The importance taken by the cephalometric analysis within the orthodontic diagnosis has been increasing over the years, for that reason the interest of comparing the reliability of the digital systems with the conventional manual tracing. Objective: To define the degree of concordance between the results of manual cephalometric tracing and with Nemoceph. Material and methods: Eight linear and angular measurements of Steiner’s cephalometric analysis were used. A cross-sectional, correlational study was conducted in which 70 digital skull lateral radiographs were analyzed. The results were divided into two groups; manual tracing and cephalometric tracing with Nemoceph, which were evaluated with an intraclass correlation index. Conclusion: a correlation degree greater than 0.75 was reported. Establishing that the digital system exhibits the same precision of the manual, with some advantages suited to the age.

REFERENCES

1. Forsyth DB, Davis DN. Assessment of an automated cephalometric analysis system. Eur J Orthod. 1996; 18 (5): 471-478.

2. Stamm T, Brinkhaus HA, Ehmer U, Meier N, Bollmann F. Computer-aided automated landmarking of cephalograms. J Orofac Orthop. 1998; 59 (2): 73-81.

3. Rudolph DJ, Sinclair PM, Coggins JM. Automatic computerized radiographic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113 (2): 173-179.

4. Rosero MK. Medios diagnósticos digitales en ortodoncia y cirugía ortognática. Revisión de Literatura. RevistaEstomatología. 2000; (5): 54-60.

5. Mouyen F, Benz C, Sonnabend E, Lodter JP. Presentation and physical evaluation of RadioVisioGraphy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1989; 68 (2): 238-242.

6. Savage AW, Showfety KJ, Yancey J. Repeated measures analysis of geometrically constructed and directly determined cephalometric points. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1987; 91 (4): 295-299.

7. 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.

8. 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 (3): 204-211.

9. Cohen JM. Comparing digital and conventional cephalometric radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2005; 128 (2): 157-160.

10. Roden-Johnson D, English J, Gallerano R. Comparison of hand-traced and computerized cephalograms: landmark identification, measurement, and superimposition accuracy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008; 133 (4): 556-564.

11. Tsorovas G, Linder-Aronson Karsten A. A comparison of hand-tracing and cephalometric analysis computer programs with and without advanced features - Accuracy and time demands. Eur J Orthod. 2010; 32 (6): 721-728.

12. Segura FJE, Valverde AS, Ocampo AM, Angelares PRC. Estudio comparativo entre la cefalometría digital y manual con radiografías digitales. Rev Mex Ortod. 2014; 2 (2): 95-98.

13. Farooq MU. Assessing the Reliability of Digitalized Cephalometric Analysis in Comparison with Manual Cephalometric Analysis. J Clin Diagnostic Res. 2016; 10 (10): 20-24.

14. Prabhakar R, Rajakumar P, Saravanan R, Reddy A, Vikram Nr, Karthikeyan M. A hard tissue cephalometric comparative study between hand tracing and computerized tracing. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2014; 6 (5): 101.

15. Chen SK, Chen YJ, Yao CCJ, Chang HF. Enhanced speed and precision of measurement in a computer-assisted digital cephalometric analysis systemp. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74 (4): 501-507.

16. Kochar GD, Jayan B, Chopra SS, Verma M, Kadu A, Singh S. Comparison of speed and precision of manual viz a viz computer assisted cephalometric measurements. J Pierre Fauchard Acad India Sect. 2015; 29 (1): 11-20.