Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 33 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 142 - 149 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062 İndeks Tarihi: 21-10-2020

Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings

Öz:
Objective: To compare the accuracy of cephalometric analyses made with fully automated tracings, computerized tracing, andapp-aided tracings with equivalent hand-traced measurements, and to evaluate the tracing time for each cephalometric analysismethod.Methods: Pre-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of 40 patients were randomly selected. Eight angular and 4 linear parameters were measured by 1 operator using 3 methods: computerized tracing with software Dolphin Imaging 13.01(Dolphin Imagingand Management Solutions, Chatsworth, Calif, USA), app-aided tracing using the CephNinja 3.51 app (Cyncronus LLC, WA, USA) , andweb-based fully automated tracing with CephX (ORCA Dental AI, Las Vegas, NV). Correction of CephX landmarks was also made. Manual tracings were performed by 3 operators. Remeasurement of 15 radiographs was carried out to determine the intra-examiner andinter-examiner (manual tracings) correlation coefficient (ICC). Inter-group comparisons were made with one-way analysis of variance.The Tukey test was used for post hoc testing.Results: Overall, greater variability was found with CephX compared with the other methods. Differences in GoGn-SN (°), I-NA (°), I-NB(°), I-NA (mm), and I-NB (mm) were statistically (p<0.05) and clinically significant using CephX, whereas CephNinja and Dolphin werecomparable to manual tracings. Correction of CephX landmarks gave similar results to CephNinja and Dolphin. All the ICCs exceeded0.85, except for I-NA (°), I-NB (°), and I-NB (mm), which were traced with CephX. The shortest analyzing time was obtained with CephX.Conclusion: Fully automatic analysis with CephX needs to be more reliable. However, CephX analysis with manual correction is promising for use in clinical practice because it is comparable to CephNinja and Dolphin, and the analyzing time is significantly shorter.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1931; 1: 45-66.
  • 2. Naoumova J, Lindman R. A comparison of manual traced images and corresponding scanned radiographs digitally traced. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31: 247-53. [Crossref]
  • 3. Phatak SM, Daokar SS. Orthodontic apps: A stairway to the future. Int J Orthod Rehabil 2019; 10: 75-81. [Crossref]
  • 4. Prgomet M, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI. The impact of mobile handheld technology on hospital physicians’ work practices and patient care: A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16: 792- 801. [Crossref]
  • 5. Livas C, Delli K, Spijkervet FKL, Vissink A, Dijkstra PU. Concurrent validity and reliability of cephalometric analysis using smartphone apps and computer software. Angle Orthod 2019; 89: 889-96. [Crossref]
  • 6. Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S, Robert CT. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs. Part 2: image quality. Angle Orthod 1996; 66: 43-60.
  • 7. Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun Tülin. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29: 105-8. [Crossref]
  • 8. Celik E, Polat-Ozsoy O, Toygar-Memikoglu TU. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31: 241-6. [Crossref]
  • 9. Mosleh MAA, Baba MS, Malek S, Almaktari RA. Ceph-X: Development and evaluation of 2D cephalometric system. BMC Bioinformatics 2016; 17: 499. [Crossref]
  • 10. Shettigar P, Shetty S, Naik RD, Basavaraddi SM, Patil AK. A Comparative evaluation of reliability of an android-based app and computerized cephalometric tracing program for orthodontic cephalometric analysis. Biomed Pharmacol J 2019; 12: 341-6. [Crossref]
  • 11. Uysal T, Baysal A, Yagci A. Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31: 523-8. [Crossref]
  • 12. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yao JC, Chang HF. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 155-61.
  • 13. Schulze RKW, Gloede MB, Doll GM. Landmark identification on direct digital versus film based cephalometric radiographs: A human skull study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122: 635-42. [Crossref]
  • 14. Paixão MB, Sobra MC, Vogel CJ, de Araujo TM. Comparative study between manual and digital cephalometric tracing using Dolphin Imaging software with lateral radiographs. Dent Press J Orthod 2010; 15: 123-30. [Crossref]
  • 15. Lagravere MO, Low C, Flores-Mir C, Chung R, Carey JP, Heo G, et al. Intraexaminer and interexaminer reliabilities of landmark identification on digitized lateral cephalograms and formatted 3-dimensional cone-beam computerized tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 598-604. [Crossref]
  • 16. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements: 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971; 60: 111-27. [Crossref]
  • 17. Trpkova B, Major P, Prasad N, Nebbe B. Cephalometric landmarks identification and reproducibility: A meta analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112: 165-70. [Crossref]
  • 18. Chan CK, Tng TH, Hägg U, Cooke MS. Effects of cephalometric landmark validity on incisor angulation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106: 487-95. [Crossref]
  • 19. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF, Chen KC. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod 2000; 70: 387-92.
  • 20. Leonardi R, Giordano D, Maiorana F, Spampinato C. Automatic cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 145-51. [Crossref]
  • 21. Geelen W, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E, Kruger M, Hansson LG. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional film, hardcopy, and monitor-displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique. Eur J Orthod. 1998; 20: 331-40. [Crossref]
  • 22. Aksakallı S, Yılancı H, Görükmez E, Ramoğlu Sİ. Reliability assessment of orthodontic apps for cephalometrics. Turk J Orthod 2016; 29: 98-102. [Crossref]
  • 23. Alqahtani H. Evaluation of an online website-based platform for cephalometric analysis. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020; 121: 53-7. [Crossref]
APA Meric P, Naoumova J (2020). Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings. , 142 - 149. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
Chicago Meric Pamir,Naoumova Julia Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings. (2020): 142 - 149. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
MLA Meric Pamir,Naoumova Julia Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings. , 2020, ss.142 - 149. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
AMA Meric P,Naoumova J Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings. . 2020; 142 - 149. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
Vancouver Meric P,Naoumova J Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings. . 2020; 142 - 149. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
IEEE Meric P,Naoumova J "Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings." , ss.142 - 149, 2020. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
ISNAD Meric, Pamir - Naoumova, Julia. "Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings". (2020), 142-149. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
APA Meric P, Naoumova J (2020). Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, 33(3), 142 - 149. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
Chicago Meric Pamir,Naoumova Julia Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics 33, no.3 (2020): 142 - 149. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
MLA Meric Pamir,Naoumova Julia Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, vol.33, no.3, 2020, ss.142 - 149. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
AMA Meric P,Naoumova J Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics. 2020; 33(3): 142 - 149. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
Vancouver Meric P,Naoumova J Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics. 2020; 33(3): 142 - 149. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
IEEE Meric P,Naoumova J "Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings." Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, 33, ss.142 - 149, 2020. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
ISNAD Meric, Pamir - Naoumova, Julia. "Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings". Turkish Journal of Orthodontics 33/3 (2020), 142-149. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062