Cephalometric Analysis Comparing Five Different Methods

Oliver, R. G.

doi:10.1179/bjo.18.4.277

Cited by 29 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…15,17 Errors with the digital technique can also result from using digital radiographs with unknown formats and unknown grey shades. 21,25,26 In the present study, radiographs were scanned in standard resolution (300 dpi) with an 8-bit greyscale. Image quality of a cephalogram scanned in standard resolution is a b c comparable to conventional cephalograms, while a high-resolution (600 dpi) version does not show better results and a greyscale less than 7-bit may lead to unreliable decisions on reproducibility of measurements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Albarakati¹,

Kula

Ghoneima

2012

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and reproducibility of angular and linear measurements of conventional and digital cephalometric methods. Methods: A total of 13 landmarks and 16 skeletal and dental parameters were defined and measured on pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 30 patients. The conventional and digital tracings and measurements were performed twice by the same examiner with a 6 week interval between measurements. The reliability within the method was determined using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r 2 ). The reproducibility between methods was calculated by paired t-test. The level of statistical significance was set at p , 0.05. Results: All measurements for each method were above 0.90 r 2 (strong correlation) except maxillary length, which had a correlation of 0.82 for conventional tracing. Significant differences between the two methods were observed in most angular and linear measurements except for ANB angle (p 5 0.5), angle of convexity (p 5 0.09), anterior cranial base (p 5 0.3) and the lower anterior facial height (p 5 0.6). Conclusion: In general, both methods of conventional and digital cephalometric analysis are highly reliable. Although the reproducibility of the two methods showed some statistically significant differences, most differences were not clinically significant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Albarakati¹,

Kula

Ghoneima

2012

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All the lateral cephalograms were taken in a standardized way and traced by hand by the same investigator. The reference points were digitized (12,13) and 23 linear distances and angles were calculated automatically with the Quick Ceph™ Systems (12925 El Camino Real, Suite J23, San Diego, CA 92130) on a Mac II computer (Macintosh).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A quantitative genetic study of cephalometric variables in twins

Carels¹,

Cauwenberghe²,

Savoye³

et al. 2001

Clinical Orthodontics and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed at determining the relative genetic and environmental impact on a number of well-known cephalometric variables in twins. In order to find a clue in the heritability pattern of some dentofacial characteristics and on the expected limits of the therapeutic impact on the dentofacial subparts they are representing. Cephalograms were collected from 33 monozygotic and 46 dizygotic twins, who did not undergo any orthodontic treatment. Nineteen linear and four angular variables were selected all representing a different definite subpart of the dentofacial complex. The reproducibility of the measurement of most of the linear variables was very high. A genetic analysis using model fitting and path analysis was carried out. First, data were checked on the fulfilment of the conditions for genetic analysis in twins reared together. The results show that the genetic determination is significantly higher for vertical (72%) than for horizontal (61%) variables. As far as the genetic component is concerned, all variables selected seem to be inherited by additive genes, except for mandibular body length, which was determined by dominant alleles. Sex differences in genetic determination were found for the anterior face height, showing a significantly higher genetic component for boys (91%) than for girls (68%). For the angular measurements, no genetic influence was found: only environmental influences common to both members of each pair could be demonstrated.

show abstract

“…Therefore, one can consider that no difference was found to be significant for the results between the manual method and the digitized one, which is corroborated by other studies 4,13 . On the other hand, such results are not corroborated elsewhere 1,7,8,17 . As we have mentioned before, cephalometry is helpful for diagnosis, planning, and control of the treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Comparison of cephalometric measurements from three radiological clinics

Gonçalves¹,

Schiavon²,

Neto³

et al. 2006

Braz. oral res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The orthodontic documentation carried out in radiological clinics is essential for diagnosis, planning and control of the orthodontic treatment. Amongst the diagnosis elements used are the cephalometric measurements, and errors can be incorporated as they are obtained. The objective of this work was to evaluate the values of some cephalometric measurements obtained in three radiological clinics using 30 lateral cephalometric radiographs of the head randomly chosen from the archives of the Department of Child Dentistry (Discipline of Orthodontics), School of Dentistry of Piracicaba, UNICAMP. These values were compared with the measurements obtained manually (control group) using variance analysis and Tukey's and Friedman's tests. Of the fourteen cephalometric measurements evaluated, the results demonstrated that only four of them presented statistically significant differences: IMPA, 1-NA, FMA, and H-nose. We concluded that although the majority of the mean cephalometric values did not present statistically significant differences, a great variability in the results was found when all the radiographic values were compared. This variability may influence the interpretation of the cephalometric measurements. Hence, we suggest that when the practitioner receives orthodontic documentation, he/she should redo the cephalometric analysis and compare the measurement values found with those presented to him. In addition, the practitioner should be prepared to use other elements for diagnosis, planning and control of the orthodontic treatment. DESCRIPTORS: Cephalometry; Observation variations; Diagnostic errors. RESUMO:A documentação ortodôntica realizada em clínicas radiológicas é essencial para diagnóstico, planejamento e controle do tratamento ortodôntico. Dentre os elementos de diagnóstico utilizados estão as grandezas cefalométricas, e erros podem ser incorporados durante a obtenção das mesmas. O objetivo deste trabalho foi avaliar os valores de algumas grandezas cefalométricas obtidas em três clínicas radiológicas, utilizando-se 30 telerradiografias da cabeça em norma lateral, escolhidas ao acaso, do arquivo do Departamento de Clínica Infantil (Disciplina de Ortodontia) da Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba -UNICAMP. Esses valores foram comparados com os das grandezas obtidas manualmente (grupo controle), utilizando-se a análise de variância e os testes de Tukey e Friedman. Os resultados demonstraram que das 14 medidas cefalométricas avaliadas, apenas 4 apresentaram diferenças estatisticamente significantes: IMPA, 1-NA, FMA, e H-nariz. Concluímos que apesar de a maioria dos valores médios das grandezas cefalométricas não apresentarem diferenças estatisticamente significantes, ao compararmos todos os valores obtidos em cada uma das radiografias, encontramos grande variabilidade nos resultados, o que pode interferir na interpretação das grandezas cefalométricas. Assim, os autores sugerem ao ortodontista, quando receber a documentação ortodôntica, realizar novamente as análises cefalométricas para comparar ...

show abstract

Cephalometric Analysis Comparing Five Different Methods

Cited by 29 publications

References 9 publications

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

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

A quantitative genetic study of cephalometric variables in twins

Comparison of cephalometric measurements from three radiological clinics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About