Landmark identification on direct digital versus film-based cephalometric radiographs: A human skull study

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Volumn 122, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 635-642

  Schulze, Ralf Kurt Willy ^a,c   Gloede, Matthias Burkhardt ^a   Doll, Gerhard Michael ^b  

^a JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c Poliklin F Zahnarztliche Chir   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ERROR; EVALUATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NORMAL HUMAN; ORTHODONTICS; SKULL; STANDARDIZATION; X RAY FILM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; METHODOLOGY; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY;

CEPHALOMETRY; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 0036885020     PISSN: 08895406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.129191     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Vandre RH, Webber RL. Future trends in dental radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;80:471-80.
2. Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S, Roberts CT. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs. Part 2: image quality. Angle Orthod 1996;66:43-50.
3. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HS, Chen KC. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod 2000;70:387-92.
4. Gijbels F, Serhal CB, Willems G, Bosmans H, Sanderink GCH, Persoons M, et al. Diagnostic yield of conventional and digital cephalometric images: a human cadaver study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001;30:101-5.
5. Krummenauer F, Doll G. Statistical methods for the comparison of measurements derived from orthodontic imaging. Eur J Orthod 2000;22:257-69.
6. Visser H, Rödig T, Hermann KP. Dose reduction by direct-digital cephalometric radiography. Angle Orthod 2001;71:159-63.
7. Quintero JC, Trosien A, Hatcher D, Kapila S. Craniofacial imaging in orthodontics: historical perspective, current status, and future developments. Angle Orthod 1999;69:491-506.
8. Liu JK, Chen YT, Cheng KS. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:535-40.
9. Rudolph DJ, Sinclair PM, Coggins JM. Automatic computerized radiographic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:173-9.
10. Gotfredsen E, Kragskov J, Wenzel A. Development of a system for craniofacial analysis from monitor-displayed digital images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28:123-6.
11. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971;60:111-27.
12. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod 1971;60:505-17.
13. Macri V, Wenzel A. Reliability of landmark recording on film and digital lateral cephalograms. Eur J Orthod 1993;15:137-48.
14. Perillo MA, Beideman RW, Shofer FS, Jacobsson-Hunt U, Higgins-Barber K, Laster LL, et al. Effect of landmark identification on cephalometric measurements: guidelines for cephalometric analyses. Clin Orthod Res 2000;3:29-36.
15. Schulze R, Krummenauer F, Schalldach F, d'Hoedt B. Precision and accuracy of measurements in digital panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000;29:52-6.
16. Janhom A, van Ginkel FC, van Amerongen JP, van der Stell PF. Scanning resolution and the detection of approximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001;30:166-71.
17. Forsyth DB, Davis DN. Assessment of an automated cephalometric analysis system. Eur J Orthod 1996;18:471-8.