Skip Navigation

The European Journal of Orthodontics 2007 29(1):105-108; doi:10.1093/ejo/cjl065
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sayinsu, K.
Right arrow Articles by Arun, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sayinsu, K.
Right arrow Articles by Arun, T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

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

Korkmaz Sayinsu, Fulya Isik, Göksu Trakyali and Tülin Arun

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey

Address for correspondence Dr Korkmaz Sayinsu, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Yeditepe University, Bagdat cad. No. 238, Goztepe, TR-81006 Istanbul, Turkey, E-mail: drkorkmaz{at}yeditepe.edu.tr


   Abstract

The aim of this investigation was to compare the classic method of tracing by hand with a computerized method, where the lateral cephalograms were scanned at 300 dpi and digitized onscreen. The inter- and intra-observer errors were investigated for tracing and digitizing errors.

Thirty lateral cephalograms were scanned into digital format at 300 dpi, displayed on a high-resolution monitor, and processed twice by two operators using Dolphin Imaging Software 9.0. The same radiographs were then traced and measured manually by the same two operators. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used for detecting intra- and inter-rater agreement for each cephalometric variable.

The results showed that each operator was consistent in the repeated measurements; all ICC were greater than or equal to 0.90 and none of the 95 per cent confidence limits on these ICC had a lower boundary less than 0.84. Inter-rater agreement also showed correlation coefficients greater than 0.75. The angles, maxillary height, maxillary depth, y-axis, FMA, and nasolabial, and the distance N perpendicular point A had a wider reliability interval and lower correlation than the other parameters tested. The findings demonstrated that the use of computer software for cephalometric analysis carried out on scanned images does not increase the measurement error when compared with hand tracing.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur J OrthodHome page
T. Uysal, A. Baysal, and A. Yagci
Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses
Eur J Orthod, October 1, 2009; 31(5): 523 - 528.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur J OrthodHome page
E. Celik, O. Polat-Ozsoy, and T. U. Toygar Memikoglu
Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis
Eur J Orthod, June 1, 2009; 31(3): 241 - 246.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur J OrthodHome page
J. Naoumova and R. Lindman
A comparison of manual traced images and corresponding scanned radiographs digitally traced
Eur J Orthod, June 1, 2009; 31(3): 247 - 253.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur J OrthodHome page
O. Polat-Ozsoy, A. Gokcelik, and T. U. Toygar Memikoglu
Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods
Eur J Orthod, June 1, 2009; 31(3): 254 - 259.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.