Cephalometric landmark identification consistency between undergraduate dental students and orthodontic residents in 3-dimensional rendered cone-beam computed tomography images: A preliminary study

Midpalatal suture maturation assessment by individuals with different levels of academic degree using cone beam computed tomography

“…analyzing the cervical vertebrae maturation method 17 and undergraduate students showed better volumetric landmark location in 3-dimensional images than orthodontic residents, 18 confirming that the level of experience do not always improve reliability. The intra-observer weighted kappa coefficients of suture-FS were substantial for both observers.…”

“…The training of the method and the calibration of observers in using the software have been used in some studies that analyzed diagnostic methods involving CBCT. 18,19,20 For the qualitative assessment of midpalatal suture maturation, our results might indicate that previous training is essential regardless of the level of academic degree because the method is based on the visual evaluation of straightness, shape, interdigitation, and density of sutural line.…”

Effect of Experience in Landmark Identification on 2D Lateral Cephalograms on Performance of Dental Students Concerning Landmark Identification on 3D Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans

“…A search of the literature by the authors yielded only one previous study on this topic. The authors evaluated dental students in four groups with different levels of experience in landmark identification on 2D cephalograms and found significant differences among the groups and reported that those with previous experience in landmark identification on 2D cephalograms had a poorer performance concerning landmark identification on 3D CBCT scans [28]. In our study, the accuracy of identification of nasion, point A, point B, orbitale, ANS, menton, coronoid process and pogonion landmarks in Group 1 with previous experience in landmark identification on 2D cephalograms was lower than that in Group 2 with no such experience, which was in agreement with the results previously reported [28].…”

“…The authors evaluated dental students in four groups with different levels of experience in landmark identification on 2D cephalograms and found significant differences among the groups and reported that those with previous experience in landmark identification on 2D cephalograms had a poorer performance concerning landmark identification on 3D CBCT scans [28]. In our study, the accuracy of identification of nasion, point A, point B, orbitale, ANS, menton, coronoid process and pogonion landmarks in Group 1 with previous experience in landmark identification on 2D cephalograms was lower than that in Group 2 with no such experience, which was in agreement with the results previously reported [28]. Our study had some differences with that previously reported [28] that evaluated students with four different levels of experience in landmark identification while we categorized dental students into two groups with and without previous experience in landmark identification on 2D cephalograms.…”

“…This quasi-experimental study was carried out on a total of 40 third-year and senior dental students, who were selected using convenience sampling. Sample size was calculated to be 20 in each group according to a previous study [28] assuming a standard deviation of total consistency in senior and third-year dental students to be 0.83 and 1.6, respectively, d=0.6, alpha=0.05 and power of 90%.…”