An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings

European Journal of Orthodontics

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 105-108

  Sayinsu, Korkmaz ^a   Isik, Fulya ^a   Trakyali, Göksu ^a   Arun, Tülin ^a  

^a YEDITEPE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY;

CEPHALOMETRY; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 33846944335     PISSN: 01415387     EISSN: 14602210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjl065     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Battagel J M 1993 A comparative assessment of cephalometric errors. European Journal of Orthodontics 15: 305-314
2. Baumrind S, Frantz R C 1971a The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. American Journal of Orthodontics 60: 111-127
3. Baumrind S, Frantz R C 1971b The reliability of head fi lm measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures . American Journal of Orthodontics 60: 505-517
4. Chen Y J, Chen S K, Chang H F, Chen K C 2000 Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthodontist 70: 387-392
5. Chen Y J, Chen S K, Yao J C, Chang H F 2004 The effects of differences in landmark identifi cation on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthodontist 74: 155-161
6. Cohen A M 1984 Uncertainty in cephalometrics. British Journal of Orthodontics 11: 44-48
7. Forsyth D B, Shaw W C, Richmond S 1996a Digital imaging of cephalometric radiography, part 1: advantages and limitations of digital imaging. Angle Orthodontist 66: 37-42
8. Forsyth D B, Shaw W C, Richmond S, Roberts C T 1996b Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs, part 2: image quality. Angle Orthodontist 66: 43-50
9. Geelen W, Wenzel A, Gotfretsen E, Kruger M, Hansson L G 1998 Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional film, hardcopy, and monitor-displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique. European Journal of Orthodontics 20: 331-340
10. Goldberg M A, Pivovarov M, Mayo-Smith W W 1994 Application of wavelet compression to digital radiographs. American Journal of Roentgenology 163: 463-468
11. Gravely J F, Benzies P M 1974 The clinical significance of tracing error in cephalometry. British Journal of Orthodontics 1: 95-101
12. Houston W J B 1983 The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. American Journal of Orthodontics 83: 382-390
13. Houston W J B, Maher R E, McElroy D, Sherriff M 1986 Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs . European Journal of Orthodontics 8: 149-151
14. Jackson P H, Dickson G C, Birnie D J 1985 Digital image processing of cephalometric radiographs: a preliminary report. British Journal of Orthodontics 12: 122-132
15. Kamoen A, Dermaut L, Verbeeck R 2001 The clinical signifi cance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. European Journal of Orthodontics 23: 569-578
16. Kish L 1965 Survey sampling. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York
17. MacMahon H, Doi K, Sanada S 1991 Data compression: effect on diagnostic accuracy in digital chest radiography. Radiology 178: 175-179
18. Macrì V, Wenzel A 1993 Reliability of landmark recording on film and digital lateral cephalograms. European Journal of Orthodontics 15: 137-148
19. Melsen B, Baumrind S 1995 Clinical research application of cephalometry. In: Athanasiou A (ed). Orthodontic cephalometry. Mosby-Wolfe, St Louis, pp. 181 - 202
20. Richardson A 1981 A comparison of traditional and computerized methods of cephalometric analysis. European Journal of Orthodontics 3: 15-20
21. Sandler P J 1988 Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements. British Journal of Orthodontics 15: 105-110
22. Turner P J, Weerakone S 2001 An evaluation of the reproducibility of landmark identification using scanned cephalometric images . Journal of Orthodontics 28: 221-229