A comparison of manual traced images and corresponding scanned radiographs digitally traced

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of cephalometric measurements made with digital tracing software (FACAD) with equivalent hand-traced measurements, and to evaluate the reproducibility of each method. Pre- and post-surgical lateral cephalographs of 30 adult patients (12 males and 18 females, median age = 25 years, standard deviation = 8.7) who had undergone orthognathic treatment were scanned into a computer. One operator identified 25 landmarks digitally on the computer display and manually on acetate paper. Measurements on the 60 radiographs were duplicated, and measurement error of each method was determined with interclass correlation. A paired t-test was used to detect differences between the manual and digital methods. Overall, greater variability in digital cephalometric measurements was found. Differences in Gn', Li, Si, and Ii-Li measurements between the two methods were statistically (P < 0.05), but not clinically significant. The findings indicate that the results of the two investigated tracing methods are similar and that digital tracing with FACAD is reliable and can be used routinely.

Accuracy and Validity of Stitching Sectional Cone Beam Computed Tomographic Images

“…The actual errors of threedimensional cephalometric measurements have been reported to range between j0.13 and 0.46 mm with manual tracing and between j0.49 and 0.34 mm with digital tracing, whereas the errors of threedimensional cephalometric measurements using CBCT range between j0.21 and 0.29 mm. 22,23 These findings cannot be compared directly with those obtained in the current study. Our results show that 55.24% and 88.63% of the minimum and maximum measurements, respectively, were within a T0.5-mm tolerance range when the images were merged manually.…”

The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods

“…The findings correspond well with previous studies that exhibited high reliability of the measurements. 7,15,17,20 The only level of correlation below 0.90 was found for maxillary length (anterior nasal spine (ANS)-posterior nasal spine (PNS)), which was still strong; the conventional measurement (r 2 5 0.82) revealed less reliability than the digital measurement (r 2 5 0.91). This could be attributed to identification of the landmark ANS, which is often affected by the superimposition of other anatomical structures and has shown poor consistency.…”

“…Various studies have been conducted to compare the accuracy of digitized, scanned and digitally obtained radiographs with conventional methods. 7,9,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Few of them have compared angular and linear measurements, mostly because the analysis of the reproducibility of lines and angles is more challenging in relation to multiple sources of error than landmarks studies. 9,14,24 However, results of comparisons of digitizing methods with conventional radiographs are contradictory (Table 1), probably because of the variety in the methods of obtaining digital images and the use of different cephalometric softwares.…”

“Are We Similar to Caucasians”: Orthognathic Surgery for North Indians

“…Even though computerized cephalometric softwares are available, we have used manual cephalometric analysis because in manual tracing landmark identification is easier, more accurate and with less variation while duplicating [20].…”