HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Turner, P. J. Articles by Weerakone, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Turner, P. J. Articles by Weerakone, S.

An Evaluation of the Reproducibility of Landmark Identification Using Scanned Cephalometric Images

¹ Department of Orthodontics, Warwick Hospital, Lakin Road, Warwick, CV34 5BW, UK
² Department of Orthodontics, Good Hope Hospital, Rectory Road, Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, B75 7RR, UK

Abstract

Objective: A method of cephalometric analysis is described in which cephalometric x-rays were scanned using a flat-bed scanner and transparency hood. Then the image was displayed on a computer monitor for point identification and subsequent cephalometric analysis using dedicated software. The reproducibility of point identification using this method was compared with two other, commonly used, methods.

Material and methods: The study material comprised 25 lateral skull x-rays taken as part of routine orthodontic assessment. Repeat cephalometric point identification was carried out on each x-ray using 3 methods:

1. On-screen digitization of the scanned bitmap image (Screenceph method)
   
2. Tracing followed by digitization of the identified points and
   
3. Direct digitization.
   

Results: For the 8 angular and 4 linear cephalometric measurements examined the Screenceph method compared favourably with the two conventional methods. The median difference between methods was 0•5 degrees and 0•2 mm. Using constructed Cartesian axes to examine the x, y discrepancy between repeat measurements and comparing Screenceph to tracing followed by digitization, there were significant differences in 3 instances at the 5% level and 2 instances at the 1% level. These differences represented median scores of 0•14 to 0•32 mm greater for Screenceph. Comparing Screenceph to direct digitization 15 significant differences out of the 28 measurements were noted: six at the 5% level and 9 at the 1% level. The actual difference in median scores ranged from 0•2 mm to 0•53 mm.

Conclusion: The results demonstrated that Screenceph is sufficiently accurate to use in a clinical setting but is not yet sufficiently exact for use in research projects owing to hardware limitations.

Key words: Computerized Cephalometric Analysis.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Vucinic, Z. Trpovski, and I. Scepan Automatic landmarking of cephalograms using active appearance models Eur J Orthod, March 4, 2010; (2010) cjp099v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

				K. Sayinsu, F. Isik, G. Trakyali, and T. Arun An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings Eur J Orthod, February 1, 2007; 29(1): 105 - 108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]