• Users Online: 216
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 65-68

Comparison of reproducibility of cephalometric measurements derived from handheld (smartphone) device application versus manual cephalometric tracing


Jabalpur Hospital and Research Centre, Russell Square, Napier Town, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India

Date of Submission10-May-2020
Date of Decision15-May-2020
Date of Acceptance20-May-2018
Date of Web Publication09-Jul-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sarvraj Singh Kohli
HIG 13, JDA Colony, Katanga, Jabalpur - 482 001, Madhya Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijor.ijor_8_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the reproducibility of cephalometric measurements derived from an application designed for handheld (smartphone) devices and manual cephalometry.
Materials and Methods: Thirty pretreatment lateral cephalograms obtained from the same digital cephalostat were analyzed. Tracings were done using CephNinja for iPhone (Cyncronus) and manually by the hand on acetate sheets. Cephalometric landmarks and angular and linear measurements were recorded. All tracings were performed by the same investigator.
Statistical Analysis: To evaluate reproducibility, for each cephalometric measurement, the agreement between the value derived from CephNinja, and that measured manually was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement was rated as low for an ICC <0.75 and an ICC >0.75 was considered indicative of good agreement. Furthermore, differences in measurements between those derived from CephNinja application and manual tracing were statistically evaluated (P < 0.05).
Results: All the measurements had ICC >0.75, indicating high agreement among both the tracing methods. Differences in measurements between CephNinja and hand tracing were not statistically significant for any of the cephalometric parameters.
Conclusion(s): Handheld (smartphone)-assisted cephalometric analysis shows good agreement with manual tracing and can be employed for clinical decision-making.

Keywords: Automation, Cephalometric analysis, Digital Cephalometric Analysis, smartphone orthodontic application


How to cite this article:
Kohli SS, Kohli VS. Comparison of reproducibility of cephalometric measurements derived from handheld (smartphone) device application versus manual cephalometric tracing. Int J Orthod Rehabil 2020;11:65-8

How to cite this URL:
Kohli SS, Kohli VS. Comparison of reproducibility of cephalometric measurements derived from handheld (smartphone) device application versus manual cephalometric tracing. Int J Orthod Rehabil [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 7];11:65-8. Available from: http://www.orthodrehab.org/text.asp?2020/11/2/65/289250


  Introduction Top


Lateral cephalometric analysis has gained wide acceptance in orthodontics owing to its application in the determination of orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning, and research.

Cephalometric radiology too has evolved from its humble beginning as film-based cephalometry as introduced by Hofrath[1] and Broadbent.[2] Digital cephalometry in its recent avatar employs a digital image, acquired directly from a digital cephalostat. This digital image is then imported into specially designed cephalometric softwares; using these softwares, various cephalometric analyses are performed. Digital cephalometric analysis offers several advantages over the earlier system of performing manual cephalometric analysis such as ease and efficiency of performing cephalometric analysis.[3],[4],[5],[6] The operator is required to correctly identify the cephalometric points required, the software can then compute as many analysis as the operator desires. This helps in reducing the error in reporting various linear and angular values due to the elimination of human error over conventional manual tracing.[7],[8] In addition, digital cephalometry aids in efficient archiving and retrieval of cephalometric films.[9]

However, in order to use such software, the operator has to acquire a desktop/workstation, which severely compromises his/her mobility. “Convergence” being the key these days, most technologies are integrating various aspects of work to as few devices as possible. The use of a portable hand-held device, especially a smartphone, which already has applications designed for practice management, patient education, patient data archiving, and retrieval seems to be the order of the day. Hence, the introduction of an application, especially designed for a smartphone to perform cephalometric analysis seems logical. However, any new application in this field must first be verified for accuracy against manually traced cephalometric methods.

With this objective in mind, the present study was conducted to assess the reproducibility of cephalometric measurements derived from a handheld (smartphone) device-based application as compared to manual tracings. This study was similar to an investigation by Goracci and Ferrari in 2014, they evaluated a different application using a tablet device.[10]

The null hypothesis established was that there is no statistically significant difference between linear and angular measurements derived from a handheld (smartphone)-based application as compared to those obtained from manual cephalometric tracing.


  Materials and Methods Top


Pretreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of 30 patients were acquired using the same digital cephalostat (Carestream Kodak 8000, Carestream Health Inc., NY, USA). The participants were positioned in the natural head position while obtaining the cephalogram. The image magnification according to the radiological machine manufacturer is 1.14. There was no discrimination in subject selection with respect to gender, type of malocclusion, or skeletal pattern.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: Cephalograms with missing posterior teeth, low-quality images, or images with artifacts that would hinder the accurate identification of skeletal structures and cephalometric points.

Handheld (smartphone)-assisted digital tracing was done using CephNinja version 3.31 (Cyncronus; free download from Apple App Store) on an iPhone 6 (Apple Corporation, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Before tracings, the cephalograms were calibrated using the tools within the application. Landmark identification was done using touch gesture on the iPhone.

Manual tracings employed the same radiographs printed on film using the Kodak Digital Imaging software and were printed at the same magnification. The tracings were performed on clear acetate sheets affixed to the cephalogram film and using a 2H pencil, 15 cm scale and protractor. Bilateral structures were averaged to a single landmark.

All tracings (manual and digital) were done by the same investigator, an orthodontist with extensive experience in cephalometrics. Dental and skeletal landmarks employed in Steiner's analysis[11] were identified. In order to accurately identify the dental structures, namely maxillary and mandibular central incisors the following points were points were digitized: For maxillary central incisor (U1), tip of the crown of the upper central incisor maxillary central incisor and apex of the root of the upper central incisor, whereas for mandibular central incisor tip (L1), tip of the crown of the lower central incisor and mandibular lower incisor apex. [Figure 1] is a screenshot of the user interface of CephNinja application with all landmarks located.
Figure 1: Screenshot of the user interface of CephNinja application with all landmarks located

Click here to view


To assess intraoperator error, all cephalograms were re-traced by the same investigator by both the methods. All re-tracings were done 3 weeks after the first tracings.

Statistical analysis

To determine intrarater reliability between manual and digital tracing techniques, the intraclass correlation co-efficient (ICC) of repeated measurements was calculated for every cephalometric variable.[10] To evaluate the reproducibility for each cephalometric parameter, the agreement between the value derived from CephNinja application and that measured manually was assessed with ICC. Agreement was rated as low for ICC lower than 0.75. However, if the ICC was >0.75, it indicated good agreement. Differences in measurements between application based and manual tracings were subjected to t-test for the independent samples. The level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. The statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software version 11.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) on a Windows operating system platform (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, USA).


  Results Top


From [Table 1], it can be observed that ICC values calculated for repeated measurements with each tracing technique indicate high inter-rater reliability. The ICC values of cephalometric measurements recorded with both the tracing techniques are given in [Table 2]. All cephalometric values have an ICC >0.75 (ICC >0.75) indicating high agreement between both the tracing techniques. The highest values of ICC were recorded for SNA and SNB.
Table 1: Intraclass correlation coefficients of repeated cephalometric measurements in handheld (smartphone) assisted, and manual tracing groups for assessing intrarater reliability

Click here to view
Table 2: Intraclass correlation coefficients of cephalometric measurements derived from handheld (smartphone) assisted and manual tracing for assessing reproducibility

Click here to view


[Table 3] contains the data regarding mean and standard deviations of the differences in the measurements between handheld (smartphone)-assisted tracing and manual tracing. The t-test revealed that for all parameters, there were statistically similar amounts of difference between handheld (smartphone)-assisted tracing and manual tracing.
Table 3: Differences in cephalometric measurements of parameters between those derived from CephNinja application and manual tracing

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Based on the results of the statistical analysis, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. All values have reported an ICC >0.75, indicating the high degree of reproducibility of cephalometric analysis conducted manually or using the application. The lack of statistical significance of the differences in the measurements between both methods supports the evidence that handheld (smartphone)-assisted cephalometric analysis can be reliably used in the orthodontic diagnosis.

Digital cephalometry offers various advantages over manual cephalometry such as ease of use and efficiency in reducing time spent otherwise on manual tracing. The CephNinja application adds to these advantages with user friendliness and portability. CephNinja application allows the operator to rotate and flip the cephalogram, as well as crop unnecessary areas of the image. The application also allows the operator to correct the position of the identified landmark after digitization. This helps in improving landmark identification, thereby minimizing the potential errors.[12]

The inferences of this investigation are very similar to those reported in a previous study.[10] Thus conclusively reinforcing the fact that tablet and/or handheld (smartphone)-assisted cephalometric analysis are reliable and can be used for clinical decision-making.

In the present study, a single investigator traced all the cephalograms. This was done to avoid the errors caused by inter-examiner variation as reported in a previous study.[13] Steiner's analysis was chosen because the landmarks/points used in it are easy to locate. All these landmarks are easily reproducible.

However, gaining proficiency in using the touch gesture for landmark identification requires time to adapt. Furthermore, the accuracy while locating points using a touch gesture needs to be investigated in a larger sample. We recommend conducting similar studies using larger sample sizes and comparing more applications which can be run on hand-held portable devices.


  Conclusion(S) Top


With respect to the data obtained from the present study, it can be concluded that:

  • Handheld (smartphone)-assisted cephalometric analysis shows good agreement with manual tracing
  • Handheld (smartphone)-assisted cephalometric analysis can be used for clinical decision-making
  • Handheld (smartphone)-assisted cephalometric analysis has the added advantage of ease of use and portability when compared to other cephalometric analysis techniques.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest



 
  References Top

1.
Hofrath H. Die bedeutung der gontgenferm und abstandsaufnahme fur die diagnostic der keiferanomalein. Fortschrittee Keiferorthopadie 1931;1:232-58.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Broadbent BH. A new X-ray technique and its application to orthodontics. Angle Orthod 1931;1:45-66.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Celik E, Polat-Ozsoy O, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:241-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Albarakati SF, Kula KS, Ghoneima AA. The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: A comparison of conventional and digital methods. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41:11-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Tanwani HB, Potnis SS, Baralay SS, Patil SS. Comparison of conventional and digital cephalometric analysis: A pilot study. J Dent Allied Sci 2014;3:80-4.  Back to cited text no. 5
  [Full text]  
6.
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;31:523-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Polat-Ozsoy O, Gokcelik A, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Differences in cephalometric measurements: A comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:254-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Tsorovas G, Karsten AL. A comparison of hand-tracing and cephalometric analysis computer programs with and without advanced features—accuracy and time demands. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:721-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Paixao MB, Sobral MC, Vogel CJ, Araujo DT. Comparative study between manual and digital cephalometric tracing using Dolphin Imaging software with lateral radiographs. Dent Press J Orthod 2010;15:123-30.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Goracci C, Ferrari M. Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod 2014;84:437-42.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39:729-55.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S, Roberts CT. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs, Part 2: Image quality. Angle Orthod 1996;66:43-50.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
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;29:105-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion(S)
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed268    
    Printed19    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded41    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]