A comparison of the reproducibility of manual tracing and on-screen digitization for cephalometric profile variables

European Journal of Orthodontics

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 586-591

  Dvortsin, D P ^a   Sandham, A ^a   Pruim, G J ^a   Dijkstra, P U ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; EVALUATION; FACE; FEMALE; HEAD; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; ORTHODONTICS; REPRODUCIBILITY; SKULL; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY;

ADOLESCENT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; FACE; FEMALE; HEAD; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; ORTHODONTICS; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SKULL;

EID: 60049084201     PISSN: 01415387     EISSN: 14602210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn041     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Battagel J M 1993 A comparative assessment of cephalometric errors. European Journal of Orthodontics 15: 305-314
2. Broadbent B H 1931 A new X-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthodontist 1: 45-66
3. Buschang P H, Tanguay R, Demirjian A 1987 Cephalometric reliability. A full ANOVA model for the estimation of true and error variance. Angle Orthodontist 57: 168-175
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 identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthodontist 74: 155-161
6. Cooke M S, Wei S H 1991 Cephalometric errors: a comparison between repeat measurements and retaken radiographs. Australian Dental Journal, 36: 38-43
7. Doll G M, Zentner A, Krummenauer F, Gärtner H 2001 Reliability and validity of the Digigraph 100 in orthodontic diagnosis. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics 62: 116-132
8. Eppley B L, Sadove A M 1991 Computerized digital enhancement in craniofacial cephalometric radiography. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 49: 1038-1043
9. Forsyth D B, Shaw W C, Richmond S, Roberts C T 1996 Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs. Part 2: image qualify. Angle Orthodontist 66: 43-50
10. Geelen W, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen 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
11. Hagemann K, Vollmer D, Niegel T, Ehmer U, Reuter I 2000 Prospective study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional and digital lateral headfilms. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics 61: 91-99
12. Houston W J B 1983 The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. American Journal of Orthodontics 83: 382-390
13. Kamoen A, Dermaut L 2001 The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. European Journal of Orthodontics 23: 569-578
14. Kazandjian S, Kiliaridis S, Mavropoulos A 2006 Validity and reliability of a new edge-based computerized method for identification of cephalometric landmarks. Angle Orthodontist 76: 619-624
15. Lim K F, Foong K W 1997 Phosphor-stimulated computed cephalometry: reliability of landmark identification. British Journal of Orthodontics 24: 301-308
16. Maorì V, Wenzel A 1993 Reliability of landmark recording on film and digital lateral cephalograms. European Journal of Orthodontics 15:137-148
17. Nimkarn Y, Miles P G 1995 Reliability of computer-generated cephalomctries. International Journal of Adult Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery 10: 43-52
18. Oka S W, Trussell H J 1978 Digital image enhancement of cephalograms. Angle Orthodontist 48: 80-84
19. Ongkosuwito E M, Katsaros C, van 't Hof M A, Bodegom J C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM 2002 The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of analogue and digital methods.. European Journal of Orthodontics 24: 655-665
20. Santoro M, Jarjoura K, Cangialosi T J 2006 Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 129: 345-351
21. Sarnas K V, Solow B 1980 Early adult changes in the skeletal and softtissue profile. European Journal of Orthodontics 2: 1-12
22. Schulze R K, Glocde M B, Doll G M 2002 Landmark identification on direct digital versus film-based cephalometric radiographs: a human skull study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 122: 635-642
23. Solow B, Tallgren A 1971 Natural head position in standing subjects. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 29: 591-607