Comparison of Landmark Identification in Traditional Versus Computer-Aided Digital Cephalometry

Angle Orthodontist

Volumn 70, Issue 5, 2000, Pages 387-392

  Chen, Yi Jane ^a   Chen, Ssu Kuang ^a,b   Chang, Hsin Fu ^a   Chen, Kun Chee ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Computer aided cephalometric analysis; Digital imaging; Landmark identification

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; RANDOMIZATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CEPHALOMETRY; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; RANDOM ALLOCATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 0034305346     PISSN: 00033219     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Baumrind S, Frantz RC, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod. 1971;60: 111-127.
2. Cohen AM, Linney AD. A low cost system for computer-based cephalometric analysis. Br J Orthod. 1986;13:105-118.
3. Houston WJB, Maher RE, McElroy D, Sherriff M. Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod. 1986;8:149-151.
4. Kvam E, Krogstad O. Variability in tracings of lateral head plates for diagnostic orthodontic purposes. A methodological study. Acta Odont Scand. 1969;27:359-365.
5. Naslund EB, Kruger M, Petersson A, Hansen K. Analysis of low-dose digital lateral cephalomteric radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1998;27:136-139.
6. Sagner T, Storr I, Benz C, Rudzki-Janson I. Diagnostic image quality in comparison of conventional and digital cephalometric radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1998;27(SI):S26 Abstract 27.
7. Baskin HN, Cisneros GJ. A comparison of two computer cephalometric programs. J Clin Orthod. 1997;31(4):231-233.
8. Oliver RG. Cephalometric analysis comparing five different methods. Br J Orthod. 1991;18:277-283.
9. Gotfredsen E, Kragskov J, Wenzel A. Development of a system for craniofacial analysis from monitor-displayed digital images. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 1999;28:123-126.
10. Forsyth DB, Shaw WC. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiology. Part I: advantages and limitation of digital imaging. Angle Orthod. 1996;66:37-42.
11. Rudolph DJ, Sinclair PM, Coggins JM. Automatic computerized radiographic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Dentofac Orthop. 1998;113:173-179.
12. Forsyth DB, Shaw WC. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiology. Part II: imaging quality. Angle Orthod. 1996;66:43-50.
13. Gravely JF, Benzies PM. The clinical significance of tracing error in cephalometry. Br J Orthod. 1984;11:44-48.
14. Enlow DH, Hans MG. Essentials of Facial Growth. Philadelphia, Penn: WB Saunders Company, 1996:259-260.
15. Sharma S. Applied Multivariate Techniques. New York, NY: J Wiley; 1996:346-355.
16. Macri V, Wenzel A. Reliability of landmark recording on film and digital lateral cephalograms. Eur J Orthod. 1993;15:137-148.
17. Geelen W, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E, Kruger M, Hansson L-G. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks in conventional film, hardcopy and monitor-displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20:331-340.
18. Cohen AM. Uncertainty in cephalometrics. Br J Orthod. 1984; 11:44-48.
19. Eppley BL. Computerized digital enhancement in craniofacial cephalometric radiography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991;49: 1038-1043.