Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs

Abstract

The aim of this investigation was to compare the traditional method of manual cephalometric tracing with four different computerized tracing programs, where the lateral cephalograms were scanned at 300 dpi and digitized onscreen. Thirty randomly selected cephalometric radiographs were used in this study. Four programs Dolphin Imaging, Vistadent, Nemoceph, and Quick Ceph were evaluated. Three dental, 11 skeletal, and 1 soft tissue parameters were measured that consisted of 5 linear and 10 angular measurements. Statistical analysis was carried out using multivariate analysis of variance and Box's and Levene's tests. No statistically significant difference was found between manual tracing and the computerized tracing programs. The measurements obtained with the cephalometric analysis programs used in the study were reliable.

Cephalometric analysis: concordance between software

“…Other authors have compared different software among them and observed similar results. Erkan et al 8 compared Dolphin ® , Vistadent ® , Nemoceph ® and Ceph Quick ® software, and did not find statistically significant difference among them. In the study of Vasconcelos et al 6 , Radiocef ® was compared to Dental Planner ® , but also no statistically significant difference was found.…”

“…Within the field of Orthodontics, one should highlight computerized cephalometric tracing obtained with the aid of software, which has been becoming even more present in scientific studies and in clinical practice [5][6]8 .…”

Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric analysis

“…Digital tracings were performed using NemoCeph NX 2009 for Windows (Nemotec, Madrid, Spain) 8 and SmileCeph for iPad (Glace Software, Imola, Italy). Before entering the landmarks, cephalograms were calibrated by digitizing two points on the length-measuring gauge within the digital cassette.…”

“…In computerized cephalometric analysis, once the requested landmarks have been entered, the software automatically calculates distances and angles, thus eliminating errors that may occur in hand tracing when drawing lines with a ruler and measuring angles with a protractor. 5,7,8 Furthermore, collecting computer-assisted cephalometrics is less time-consuming than manual tracing, 3,9 and it allows the user to obtain several analyses at a time. 6 In addition, digital archiving overcomes the problem of film deterioration.…”

“…6,9 Earlier studies have assessed the reproducibility of measurements in manual versus computer-aided cephalometric analysis. [3][4][5][6][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] However, as new programs for computerized cephalometry are continuously launched, their accuracy needs to be validated against that of previously marketed softwares and against traditional hand tracing. Lately, a software for digital tracing has been made available as an application for iPad.…”