The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry

Angle Orthodontist

Volumn 74, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 155-161

  Chen, Yi Jane ^a   Chen, Ssu Kuang ^a,b   Yao, Jane Chung Chen ^c   Chang, Hsin Fu ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c NONE

Author keywords

Cephalometric measurement; Computer aided cephalometric analysis; Digital imaging

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; ERROR; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT; MEDICAL RECORD; OBSERVER VARIATION; ORTHODONTICS; RELIABILITY; RESIDENT; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; X RAY FILM; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; IMAGE QUALITY; METHODOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY;

CEPHALOMETRY; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 3042622166     PISSN: 00033219     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Forsyth DB, Shaw WC. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiology. Part I: advantages and limitation of digital imaging. Angle Orthod. 1996;66:37-42.
2. Baskin HN, Cisneros GJ. A comparison of two computer cephalometric programs. J Clin Orthod. 1997;31:231-233.
3. Gotfredsen E, Kragskov J, Wenzel A. Development of a system for craniofacial analysis from monitor-displayed digital images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1999;28:123-126.
4. Naslund EB, Kruger M, Petersson A, Hansen K. Analysis of low-dose digital lateral cephalometric radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1998;27:136-139.
5. Geelen W, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E, Kruger M, HanssonL-G. Re-producibility of cephalometric landmarks in conventional film, hardcopy and monitor-displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20:331-340.
6. Gravely JF, Benzies PM. The clinical significance of tracing error in cephalometry. Br J Orthod. 1984;11:44-48.
7. Enlow DH, Hans MG. Essentials of Facial Growth. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Company; 1996: 259-260.
8. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chan HF, Chen KC. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2000;70:387-392.
9. Chen KC, Chen MC, Wu KM, Chan HF, Chen YJ, Yuan ST. The vector analysis of the anteroposterior relationship among the apical bases and the incisiors. Chin Dent J. 1989;8:6-20.
10. Chen YJ, Hong YL, Wu KM, Chen MC, Chan HF, Chen KC. Jaw triangle analysis: an adjuvant diagnostic tool in orthodontics. Chin Dent J. 1993;12:56-70.
11. Cohen AM. Uncertainty in cephalometrics. Br J Orthod. 1984; 11:44-48.
12. Williams S, Leighton BC, Nielsen JH. Linear evaluation of the development of sagittal jaw relationship. Am J Orthod. 1985;88: 235-241.
13. Houston WJB, Maher RE, McElroy D, Sherriff M. Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod. 1986;8:149-151.
14. Ahlqvist J, Eliasson S, Welander U. The effect of projection errors on cephalometric length measurements. Eur J Orthod. 1986;8: 141-148.
15. Ahlqvist J, Eliasson S, Welander U. The effect of projection errors on angular measurements in cephalometry. Eur J Orthod. 1988; 10:353-361.
16. Baumrind S, Frantz RC, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod. 1971;60:505-517.
17. Nagasaka S, Fujimura T, Segoshi K. Development of a non-radiographic cephalometric system. Eur J Orthod. 2003;25:77-85.
18. Macri V, Wenzel A. Reliability of landmark recording on film and digital lateral cephalograms. Eur J Orthod. 1993;15:137-148.
19. Cohen AM, Linney AD. A low cost system for computer-based cephalometric analysis. Br J Orthod. 1986;13:105-118.