COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN MANUAL AND DIGITAL TRACINGS USING DIGITAL LATERAL RADIOGRAPHS WITH NEW CEPHALOMETRIC SOFTWARE´S VERSION

Cite this:
[1]
L. D. P. J. M. R. C. . O. Alberto Albaladejo, “COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN MANUAL AND DIGITAL TRACINGS USING DIGITAL LATERAL RADIOGRAPHS WITH NEW CEPHALOMETRIC SOFTWARE´S VERSION”, ijmhs, vol. 3, no. 5, Sep. 2013.
© 2022 Interactive Protocols
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Article Views
283
Altmetric
1
Citations
-
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
   PDF  

Abstract

Objectives. To assess the variability and reproducibility of a series of pre-selected cephalometric angular measurements using manual tracing (MT) and digitized tracing with the Nemoceph 8.5.2 (DT) software on digital lateral cephalometric radiographs for first time.

Material and Methods. 30 digital teleradiographs featuring 12 angular were traced cephalometrically by the same user on two occasions, once MT and once DT, one month apart.

Results. The intraclass correlation in different methods found that the observer is concordant in the two tracings where the only values below excellent were the measurements SNA, SNB and ANB in DT, which were above acceptable. The intermethod correlation for the different parameters showed that, compared to the DT, the MT were very concurrent, with all of the measurements displaying values above excellent. The points A and B affect the measurements in which they are involved, and were more notable in the digital method.

Conclusion. The validity and reproducibility of the angular measures with the Nemoceph software version 8.5.2 and the traditional method on digital lateral cephalometric radiographs show excellent concordance, however, the manual method was excellent in a greater proportion of cases than the digital method.

KEYWORDS:

 Special Issue

Article Metrics Graph

Chart Graph | Range Graph

Content

Section

Source

License

All paper submissions must carry the following duly signed by all the authors:
“I certify that I have participated sufficiently in the conception and design of this work and the analysis of the data (wherever applicable), as well as the writing of the manuscript, to take public responsibility for it. I believe the manuscript represents valid work. I have reviewed the final version of the manuscript and approve it for publication. Neither has the manuscript nor one with substantially similar content under my authorship been published nor is being considered for publication elsewhere, except as described in an attachment. Furthermore I attest that I shall produce the data upon which the manuscript is based for examination by the editors or their assignees, if requested.”