Inter and Intra-rater Reliability of Lateral Cephalometric Analysis Using 2D Dolphin Imaging Software Reliability of Lateral Cephalometric Analysis Using 2D Dolphin Software
Journal of Dental School,
Vol. 38 No. 4 (2020),
18 December 2021
,
Page 148-152
https://doi.org/10.22037/jds.v38i4.35384
Abstract
Objectives Cephalometric radiographs are widely used in diagnosis and treatment planning. In the past, these radiographs used to be analyzed manually, but nowadays due to the possibility of errors and time-consuming nature of manual tracing, digital methods are replacing the manual methods. The reliability of computer-assisted analysis is of great importance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the inter and intra-rater reliability of 2D Dolphin imaging software version 10.0.00.53.
Methods To assess the intra-rater reliability of lateral cephalometric analysis, 25 lateral cephalograms traced by one operator using Dolphin imaging software were traced again by the same examiner 2 weeks later. To assess the inter-rater reliability, 25 lateral cephalograms were traced independently by two examiners. Overall, 80 measurements including 43 linear, 34 angular, and 3 ratio measurements were made. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. ICCs above 0.75 were considered good.
Results The ICC for intra-rater reliability was above 0.75 for all parameters except lower vertical height depth ratio (ICC=0.51), inter-labial gap (ICC=0.54), superior sulcus depth (ICC=0.67), articular angle (ICC=0.733), and ramus height (ICC=0.728). The ICC for inter-rater reliability was above 0.75 for all parameters except nose prominence (ICC=0.73).
Conclusion Dolphin imaging software showed good intra-rater reliability for most parameters and good inter-rater reliability for almost all parameters.
- Cephalometric analysis
- Orthodontics
- Reproducibility of Results
- Digital Technology
How to Cite
References
Kunz F, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Zeman F, Boldt J. Artificial intelligence in orthodontics. J Orofac Orthop. 2020;81(1):52-68.
Helal NM, Basri OA, Baeshen HA. Significance of cephalometric radiograph in orthodontic treatment plan decision. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019;20(7):789-93.
Coşkun EY, Esenlik E. A Prospective Study Comparing Adolescent and Post-Adolescent Periods Regarding Effects of Activator Appliance in Patients with Class II Mandibular Retrognathia by Using 3dMDface Analysis and Cephalometry. Med Sci Monit. 2020; 26: e921401-1–e921401-16.
Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements: 1. Landmark identification. Am. J. Orthod.. 1971;60(2):111-27.
Power G, Breckon J, Sherriff M, McDonald F. Dolphin Imaging Software: an analysis of the accuracy of cephalometric digitization and orthognathic prediction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;34(6):619-26.
İzgi E, Pekiner FN. Comparative evaluation of conventional and OnyxCeph™ dental software measurements on cephalometric radiography. Turk J Orthod. 2019 Jun; 32(2): 87–95.
Brennan J. An introduction to digital radiography in dentistry. J Orthod. 2002; 29 (1): 66-9.
Forsyth D, Shaw W, Richmond S. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiography, part 1: advantages and limitations of digital imaging. Angle Orthod. 1996; 66 (1): 37–42.
Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun T. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod . 2007;29(1):105-8.
Houston W. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am. J. Orthod.. 1983;83(5):382-90.
Dvortsin D, Sandham A, Pruim G, Dijkstra P. A comparison of the reproducibility of manual tracing and on-screen digitization for cephalometric profile variables. Eur J Orthod . 2008;30(6):586-91.
Torres H, Evangelista K, Torres E, Estrela C, Leite A, Valladares-Neto J, et al. Reliability and validity of two software systems used to measure the pharyngeal airway space in three-dimensional analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49(5):602-13. 13. Vaid NR, Hansa I, Bichu Y. Smartphone applications used in orthodontics: A scoping review of scholarly literature. Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists. 2020.
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.
Kasinathan G, Kommi PB, Kumar SM, Yashwant A, Arani N, Sabapathy S. Evaluation of Soft Tissue Landmark Reliability between Manual and Computerized Plotting Methods. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017;18(4):317-21.
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(5):523-8.
Gravely J, Benzies PM. The clinical significance of tracing error in cephalometry. Br. J. Orthod. 1974;1(3):95-101.
Chen Y-J, Chen S-K, Chung-Chen Yao J, Chang H-F. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(2):155-61.
Santoro M, Jarjoura K, Cangialosi TJ. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129(3):345-51.
Patel D, Chaudhary S. The comparison of computer aided digital cephalometric radiograph with manual tracing. Int J Adv Res. 2016;4:621-6.
Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF, Chen KC. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2000;70(5):387-92.
Bruntz LQ, Palomo JM, Baden S, Hans MG. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(3):340-8.
Legan HL, Burstone CJ. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg. 1980;38(10):744-51.
Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am. J. Orthod. 1983;84(1):1-28.
Fish LC, Epker BN, Sullivan CR. Orthognathic surgery: the correction of dentofacial deformities. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;51(1):28-41.
Ricketts RM. Cephalometric analysis and synthesis. The Angle Orthodontist. 1961;31(3):141-56.
Merrifield LL. The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod. 1966;52(11):804-22.
Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod. 1953;39(10):729-55.
McNamara Jr JA. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod. 1984;86(6):449-69.
Tweed CH. The Frankfort-mandibular incisor angle (FMIA) in orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning and prognosis. Angle Orthod. 1954;24(3):121-69.
Björk A. Follow-up X-ray study of the individual variation in growth occurring between of 12 and 20 years and its relation to brain case and face development. Am J Orhod. 1955;41:199-255.
Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships: their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orhod. 1948;34(10):812-40.
Farkas LG, Katic M, Hreczko TA, Deutsch C, Munro IR. Anthropometric proportions in the upper lip-lower lip-chin area of the lower face in young white adults. Am J Orhod. 1984;86(1):52-60.
Moreno A, Bell WH, You Z-H. Esthetic contour analysis of the submental cervical region: a study based on ideal subjects and surgical patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994;52(7):704-13.
Wisth P. Nose morphology in individuals with Angle Class I, Class II or Class III occlusions. Acta Odontol Scand. 1975;33(1):53-7.
Chaconas SJ. A statistical evaluation of nasal growth. Am J Orthod. 1969;56(4):403-14.
- Abstract Viewed: 346 times
- PDF Downloaded: 74 times