Turkish Journal of Orthodontics
Original Article
Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings

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

1.

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey

2.

Specialist Clinic of Orthodontics, University Clinics of Odontology, Public Dental Service, Västra Götaland Region, Gothenburg, Sweden

Turk J Orthod 2020; 33: 142-149
DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.20062
Read: 649 Downloads: 378 Published: 27 July 2020

Objective: To compare the accuracy of cephalometric analyses made with fully automated tracings, computerized tracing, and app-aided tracings with equivalent hand-traced measurements, and to evaluate the tracing time for each method.

Methods: Pre-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of 40 patients were randomly selected. Furthermore, 8 angular and 4 linear parameters were measured by 1 operator using 3 methods: computerized tracing with software Dolphin Imaging 13.01, app-aided tracing using the CephNinja 3.51 app, and web-based fully automated tracing with CephX. 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 and inter-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 were comparable to manual tracings. Correction of CephX landmarks gave similar results to CephNinja and Dolphin. All the ICCs exceeded 0.85, 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 tracing with CephX needs to be overall more reliable. However, CephX tracing 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.

Cite this article as: Meriç P, Naoumova J. Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings. Turk J Orthod 2020; 33(3): 142-9.

Files
EISSN 2148-9505