Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Konvansiyonel ve dijital sefalometrik ölçüm yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması

Comparison of conventional and digital cephalometric measurement methods

Journal Name:

  • Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2014

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare intra- and inter-examiner reliability of the measurements obtained from letaral cephalometric radiographs using the conventional and digital methods. Material-Method: Sixty lateral cephalometric radiographs were randomly selected and 5 linear and 14 angular parameters were traced and measured by two examiners using the conventional and digital methods on each radiograph. Digital images were obtained by scanning the conventional radiographs. Independent-samples t-test was used to compare the mean values of intra-examiner differences. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to determine intra- and inter-examiner correlation. Results: Both operators were generally consistent in the repeated measurements; however, for one examiner, the difference for nasolabial angle measurements was found to be statistically significant (p<0.05). Intra-examiner and inter- examiner repeatabilities of measurements both with the manual and digital techniques showed high correlation coefficients. Discussion: The findings showed that the use of computerassisted cephalometric analysis carried out on scanned images did not increase the measurement error when compared with conventional technique.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı lateral sefalometrik radyografiler üzerinde dijital ortamda veya elde yapılan konvansiyonel çizimlerden elde edilen ölçümlerin araştırmacılar-arası ve araştırmacı-içi güvenilirliğinin karşılaştırılmasıdır. Materyal-Metot: 60 adet lateral sefalometrik radyografi rastgele seçildi ve iki araştırmacı tarafından hem konvansiyonel hem de dijital program yardımı ile çizilerek 5 doğrusal ve 14 açısal ölçüm elde edildi. Dijital görüntüler konvansiyonel radyografilerinin taranması ile elde edildi. Herbir araştırmacının yöntemler arasındaki istatistiksel değerlendirilmesinde bağımsız örnek t-testi kullanıldı. Grup içi ve gruplar arası korelasyonun belirlenmesinde grup içi korelasyon katsayısı testi kullanıldı. Bulgular: İki yöntemin karşılaştırılmasında sadece bir araştırmacının ölçtüğü nasolabial açıda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulundu. Hem dijital hem de konvansiyonel yöntemlerle elde edilen ölçümlerde iki araştırmacı arasında ve araştırmacıların kendi içerisindeki tekrarlanabilirliğinde yüksek korelasyon görüldü. Tartışma: Taranmış görüntülerin kullanılmasıyla elde edilmiş bilgisayar destekli dijital sefalometrik analiz konvansiyonel çizilerek elde edilen ölçümlerle karşılaştırıldığında ölçüm hatasını arttırmamaktadır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-konvansiyonel-dijital-sefalometrik-olcum-yontemlerinin-karsilastirilmasi.pdf
  • 3
94
97
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Brodie AG. On the growth pattern of the human head from
the third month to the eighth year of life . Am J Anat 1941;
68: 209-262.
2. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film
measurements 1. Landmark identification . Am J Orthod.
1971a; 60: 111–127.
3. Baumrind S , Frantz RC. The reliability of head film
measurements 2. Conventional angular and linear measures.
Am J Orthod. 1971b; 60: 505–517.
4. Ricketts RM. Perspectives in clinical application of
cephalometrics. Angle Orthod. 1981; 51: 115–150.
5. Liu JK, Chen YT, Cheng KS. Accuracy of computerized
automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000; 118: 535–540.
6. Chen SK, Chen YJ, Yao CC, Chang HF. Enhanced
speed and precision of measurement in a computer-assisted
digitalcephalometric analysis system. Angle Orthod. 2004a;
74: 501–507.
7. Björk A, Solow B. Measurements on radiographs . J Dent
Res. 1961; 41: 672–683.
8. Houston WJB, Maher RE, McElroy D, Sherriff M. Sources
of errorin measurements from cephalometric radiographs .
Eur J Orthod. 1986; 8: 149–151.
9. Quintero JC, Trosien A, Hatcher D, Kapila S. Craniofacial
imaging in orthodontics: historical perspective, current status,
and future developments . Angle Orthod. 1999; 69: 491–506.
10. Brannan J. An introduction to digital radiography in
dentistry . J Orthod. 2002; 29: 66–69.
11. Melsen B, Baumrind S. Clinical research application of
cephalometry. Athanasiou A, ed. Orthodontic cephalometry,
1st ed. StLouis: Mosby-Wolfe; 1995: 181–202.
12. Houston WJB. The analysis of erors in orthodontic
measurements. Am J Orthod. 1983; 83: 382-390.
13. Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S. Digital imaging of
cephalometric radiology. Part I: advantages and limitation of
digital imaging. Angle Orthod. 1996a; 66: 37–42.
14. Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S, Roberts CT. Digital
imaging of cephalometric radiographs. Part 2: image quality.
Angle Orthod. 1996b; 66: 43–50.
15. Held CL, Ferguson DJ, Gallo MW. Cephalometric
digitization: a determination of the minimum scanner settings
necessary for precise landmark identification. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 119: 472–481.
16. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF, Chen KC. Comparison of
landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided
digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2000; 70: 387–392.
17. Onkosuwito EM, Katsaros C, van’tHof MA, Bodegom JC,
Kuipers-Jagtman AM. The reproducibility of cephalometric
measurements:a comparison of analogue and digital methods
. Eur J Orthod. 2002; 24: 655–665.
18. 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: 523–528.
19. 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: 105–108.
20. Erkan M, Gurel HG, Nur M, Demirel B. Reliability of
four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs.
Eur J Orthod. 2012; 34: 318–321.
21. Celik E, Ozsoy OP, Memikoglu UT. Comparison of
cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional
cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2009; 31: 241–246.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com