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

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of orthodontics 2009-06, Vol.31 (3), p.247-253
Main Authors: Naoumova, Julia, Lindman, Rolf
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acetates
Adolescent
Adult
Cephalometry - methods
Cephalometry - statistics & numerical data
Chin - pathology
Computer Terminals
Data Display
Dentistry
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods
Incisor - pathology
Lip - pathology
Male
Malocclusion - pathology
Malocclusion - surgery
Mandible - pathology
Maxilla - pathology
Middle Aged
Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods
Reproducibility of Results
Software
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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 
ISSN:0141-5387
1460-2210
DOI:10.1093/ejo/cjn110