Error in landmark identification in lateral radiographic headplates

Broch, Just; Slagsvold, Olav; Røsler, Marek

doi:10.1093/ejo/3.1.9

Cited by 59 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The identification of A or B point, for example, is prone to error in the perpendicular rather than in the horizontal plane. 5,40 The use of these techniques for clinical purposes to provide initial landmark estimates could be a great help. In fact, automatic systems with the possibility for the orthodontist to correct or modify the position of landmarks found by the computerized landmarking approach could provide a future advantage in time saved and increased accuracy of the cephalometric analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Automatic Cephalometric Analysis

Leonardi

Giordano

Maiorana

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To describe the techniques used for automatic landmarking of cephalograms, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each one and reviewing the percentage of success in locating each cephalometric point. Materials and Methods: The literature survey was performed by searching the Medline, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the ISI Web of Science Citation Index databases. The survey covered the period from January 1966 to August 2006. Abstracts that appeared to fulfill the initial selection criteria were selected by consensus. The original articles were then retrieved. Their references were also hand-searched for possible missing articles. The search strategy resulted in 118 articles of which eight met the inclusion criteria. Many articles were rejected for different reasons; among these, the most frequent was that results of accuracy for automatic landmark recognition were presented as a percentage of success. Results: A marked difference in results was found between the included studies consisting of heterogeneity in the performance of techniques to detect the same landmark. All in all, hybrid approaches detected cephalometric points with a higher accuracy in contrast to the results for the same points obtained by the model-based, image filtering plus knowledge-based landmark search and ''soft-computing'' approaches. Conclusions: The systems described in the literature are not accurate enough to allow their use for clinical purposes. Errors in landmark detection were greater than those expected with manual tracing and, therefore, the scientific evidence supporting the use of automatic landmarking is low.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, in most instances the errors in landmark detection were greater in every automated system than those expected with manual tracing. 3,38,40 With the advance of digital radiography, this latter limit could be overcome and automatic detection of landmarks will become better established.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic Cephalometric Analysis

Leonardi

Giordano

Maiorana

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bei der Auswertung der Fernröntgenseitenbilder und Modelle muss nach Broch et al [4] vor allem mit Identifikations-und Messfehlern gerechnet werden. Die in der Fehleranalyse ermittelten Werte lagen im von anderen Autoren angegebenen Rahmen und konnten nach Miethke [18] daher vernachlässigt werden.…”

Section: Fernröntgenseitenbildauswertungunclassified

“…According to Broch et al [4], it is primarily landmark definition and measuring errors that have to be taken into account when evaluating lateral cephalograms and casts. Since the measurement errors were within the range reported by other authors, they can be neglected according to Miethke [18].…”

Section: Cephalometric Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Vertical Changes in Patients with Complete Unilateral and Bilateral Cleft Lip, Alveolus and Palate

Lisson

Hanke

Tränkmann

2004

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics/Fortschritte der Kieferorthop�

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A vertical growth impairment of the maxilla was registered in patients with cleft lip, alveolus and palate. The maxilla of the cleft patients showed a significant clockwise rotation while the inclination of the mandible remained virtually unchanged. Both upper and lower incisors, which were significantly retruded at the beginning of the late mixed dentition, could be protruded in the course of craniofacial growth, development of the dentition and treatment, but remained retruded in comparison with the non-cleft controls. The posterior midfacial height was highly significantly shorter in both UCLP and BCLP patients at both evaluation timepoints, whereas the anterior lower jaw height was greater than in the control group

show abstract

“…One of the contributing factors for the insignificant difference may arise from the reason that these landmarks were in clear border of the craniofacial structure. However, if the landmark is in a blurred area of the craniofacial structures, the error will be large [13,14]. Regarding the magnitude of cephalometric landmarks identification error, Trpkova et al [15] recommended that 0.59 mm of total error for the x-coordinate and 0.56 mm for the y-coordinate are within acceptable levels of accuracy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%