Picture archiving and communications systems: A study of reliability of orthodontic cephalometric analysis

European Journal of Orthodontics

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 537-543

  Tan, Sylvia S W ^a,b   Ahmad, Sofia ^c   Moles, David R ^d   Cunningham, Susan J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b STOKE MANDEVILLE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c QUEEN VICTORIA HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d PLYMOUTH UNIVERSITY PENINSULA SCHOOLS OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANATOMIC LANDMARK; ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FACIAL BONE; HISTOLOGY; HOSPITAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; INSTRUMENTATION; JAW; MALOCCLUSION; MEDICAL RECORD; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY;

ANATOMIC LANDMARKS; CEPHALOMETRY; DENTAL RECORDS; FACIAL BONES; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; JAW; MALOCCLUSION; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 80053551885     PISSN: 01415387     EISSN: 14602210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq116     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Baumrind S, Frantz R C 1971 The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Americal Journal of Orthodontics 60: 505-517
2. Bland J M, Altman D G 1986 Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet 1: 307-310 (Pubitemid 16134762)
3. Celik E, Polat-Ozsoy O, Toygar Memikoglu T U 2009 Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. European Journal of Orthodontics 31: 241-246
4. Forsyth D B, Shaw W C, Richmond S 1996 Digital imaging of cephalometric radiography, part 1: Advantages and limitations of digital imaging. The Angle Orthodontist 66: 37-42 (Pubitemid 126466200)
5. Geelen W, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E, Kruger M, Hanson 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 (Pubitemid 128492290)
6. Houston W J B 1983 The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. American Journal of Orthodontics 83: 382-389
7. Miller P A, Savara B S, Singh I J 1966 Analysis of errors in cephalometric measurement of three-dimensional distances on the maxilla. The Angle Orthodontist 36: 129-175
8. Mills J R E 1987 Principles and practice of orthodontics, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh
9. Oliver R G 1991 Cephalometric analysis comparing five different methods. British Journal of Orthodontics 18: 277-281
10. Petrie A, Watson P 1999 Statistics for veterinary and animal science. Blackwell Science, Oxford
11. Polat-Ozsoy O, Gokcelik A, Toygar Memikoglu T U 2009 Differences in cephalometric measurements: A comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods. European Journal of Orthodontics 31: 254-259
12. Power G, Breckon J, Sherriff M, McDonald F 2005 Dolphin imaging software: An analysis of the accuracy of cephalometric digitisation and orthognathic prediction. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 34: 619-626 (Pubitemid 40960073)
13. Richardson A 1981 A comparison of traditional and computerised methods of cephalometric analysis. European Journal of Orthodontics 3: 15-20 (Pubitemid 11186996)
14. Sandler P J 1988 Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements. British Journal of Orthodontics 15: 105-110
15. Sanfridsson J 2001 Orthopaedic measurements with computed radiography: Methodological development, accuracy and radiation dose with special reference to the weight-bearing lower extremity and the dislocating patella. Acta Radiologica 423: 1-40
16. Sayinsu K, Fulya I, Trakyali G, Arun T 2007 An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. European Journal of Orthodontics 29: 105-108
17. Uysal T, Baysal A, Ahmet Y 2009 Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses. European Journal of Orthodontics 31: 523-528