Banner Portal
Automatic cephalometric analysis: is it time to switch to a hands-free method?
PDF

Keywords

Cephalometry. Software. Benchmarking.

How to Cite

1.
Michels M, Assunção RL de, Oliveira ML de, Alves MR, Visconti MAPG, Guedes FR. Automatic cephalometric analysis: is it time to switch to a hands-free method?. Braz. J. Oral Sci. [Internet]. 2018 Dec. 6 [cited 2024 Dec. 9];17:e181095. Available from: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8654178

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the reliability of the automatic cephalometric analysis in relation to the semi-automatic method. Methods: Fifty lateral cephalometric radiographs were selected and two dental surgeons performed the Steiner and Tweed analyses independently using the semi-automatic method on the Radiocef Studio 2® software suite (Radiomemory, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil), and the automatic method on the Kodak Dental Imaging Software (Carestream Health, Rochester, NY, USA). After thirty days, 30% of the sample was re-evaluated to assess intra-observer agreement. Ten angular and linear measurements of both analyses were selected, averaged for both observers and compared using Student's t-test with a significance level of 5% (α=0.05). Intra and inter-observer agreement were assessed through Intraclass Correlation Coefficient. Results: Intra-observer reproducibility was excellent for all measurements and inter-observer reproducibility was excellent for most of them. Significant differences (p<0.05) were found between automatic and semi-automatic methods for all measurements. Most of the measurements were significantly higher (p<0.05) with the automatic method. Conclusion: Semi-automatic cephalometric analysis can not be replaced with a completely automatic method.

https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v17i0.8654178
PDF

References

Shahidi S, Shahidi S, Oshagh M, Gozin F, Salehi P, Danaei SM. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks by a designed software. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(1):20110187. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20110187.

Codari M, Caffini M, Tartaglia GM, Sforza C, Baselli G. Computer-aided cephalometric landmark annotation for CBCT data. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2017 Jan;12(1):113-121. doi: 10.1007/s11548-016-1453-9.

Chien PC, Parks ET, Eraso F, Hartsfield JK, Roberts WE, Ofner S. Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009 Jul;38(5):262-73. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/81889955.

Kafieh R, Sadri S, Mehri A, Raji H. Discrimination of bony structures in cephalograms for automatic landmark detection. Commun Comput Inf Sci. 2008;6 CCIS:609-20. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-89985-3_75.

Lindner C, Wang CW, Huang CT, Li CH, Chang SW, Cootes TF. Fully Automatic System for Accurate Localisation and Analysis of Cephalometric Landmarks in Lateral Cephalograms. S Sci Rep. 2016 Sep 20;6:33581. doi: 10.1038/srep33581.

Cicchetti D V. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instrument in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994 Dec;6(4):284-90. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284.

Chen Y-J, Chen S-K, Yao JC-C, Chang H-F. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod . 2004 Apr;74(2):155–61.

Chen S-K, Chen Y-J, Yao C-CJ, Chang H-F. Enhanced speed and precision of measurement in a computer-assisted digital cephalometric analysis system. Angle Orthod. 2004 Aug;74(4):501-7.

Davis DN, Mackay F. Reliability of cephalometric analysis using manual and interactive computer methods. Br J Orthod. 1991 May;18(2):105-9.

Dana JM, Goldstein M, Burch JG, Hardigan PC. Comparative study of manual and computerized cephalometric analyses. J Clin Orthod. 2004 May;38(5):293-6.

Nimkarn Y, Miles PG. Reliability of computer-generated cephalometrics. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1995;10(1):43-52.

Trpkova B, Major P, Prasad N, Nebbe B. Cephalometric landmarks identification and reproducibility: A Meta analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1997 Aug;112(2):165-70.

Mosleh MA, Baba MS, Malek S, Almaktari RA. Ceph-X: development and evaluation of 2D cephalometric system. BMC Bioinformatics. 2016 Dec 22;17(Suppl 19):499. doi: 10.1186/s12859-016-1370-5.

Mosleh MAA, Baba MS, Malek S, Almaktari RA. Ceph-X: development and evaluation of 2D cephalometric system. BMC Bioinformatics. 2016 Dec 22;17(Suppl 19):499. doi: 10.1186/s12859-016-1370-5.

Ferreira JTL, Telles C de S. Evaluation of the reliability of computerized profile cephalometric analysis. Braz Dent J . 2002;13(3):2014.

Ahmed M, Shaikh A, Fida M. Diagnostic performance of various cephalometric parameters for the assessment of vertical growth pattern. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016 Jul-Aug;21(4):41-9. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.21.4.041-049.oar.

Hutton TJ, Cunningham S, Hammond P. An evaluation of active shape models for the automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Eur J Orthod . 2000 Oct;22(5):499-508.

Li Q, Zheng Z, Bai D, Pang G. [A retrospective study of morphologic basis for the extraction decision in Class II, division 1 malocclusion]. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 1999 Nov;17(4):341-3. Chinese.

Neelapu BC, Kharbanda OP, Sardana V, Gupta A, Vasamsetti S, Balachandran R, et al. Automatic localization of three-dimensional cephalometric landmarks on CBCT images by extracting symmetry features of the skull. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018 Feb;47(2):20170054. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20170054.

Montúfar J, Romero M, Scougall-Vilchis RJ. Automatic 3-dimensional cephalometric landmarking based on active shape models in related projections. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Mar;153(3):449-458. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.028.

Hedesiu M, Marcu M, Salmon B, Pauwels R, Oenning AC, Almasan O, et al. Irradiation provided by dental radiological procedures in a pediatric population. Eur J Radiol. 2018 Jun;103:112-117. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.04.021.

Abdelkarim AA. Appropriate use of ionizing radiation in orthodontic practice and research. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Feb;147(2):166-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.11.010.

European Commission. Radiation Protection n.172. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology (Evidence-based guidelines). Luxembourg; 2012 [cited 2018 Jul 15]. Available from: http://www.sedentexct.eu/files/radiation_protection_172.pdf.

The Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences uses the Creative Commons license (CC), thus preserving the integrity of the articles in an open access environment.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.