Vista Dent ve Nemoceph Dijital Yazılımları ile Yapılan Sefalometrik Ölçümlerin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi
Öz
Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, dijital sefalometrik çizim programlarından Vista dent ve Nemoceph yazılımlarının güvenilirliğini karşılaştırmaktır.
Yöntem: Bu çalışma için toplam 300 adet sefalometrik radyografi seçildi. Vista dent ve Nemoceph programları, sefalometrik ölçümler yapmak için kullanıldı. İki yöntemle elde edilen SNA ve SNB açı değerleri bağımsız örneklem t-testi ile değerlendirildi. GoGn-SN açısını karşılaştırmak için Mann-Whitney U Testi uygulandı. Pearson korelasyon analizi, iki ölçüm yöntemi arasındaki tutarlılığı değerlendirmek için kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Vista dent ve Nemoceph yazılımları tarafından yapılan SNA, SNB, GoGn-SN açıları arasında istatistiksel bir fark bulunmamıştır (p > 0,05). Değişkenler arasında güçlü bir korelasyon tespit edilmiştir.
Sonuçlar: Kullanmakta olduğumuz iki dijital sefalometrik analiz programından elde edilen ölçümlerin birbirleriyle tutarlı olduğu bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak, klinisyenler bu programlardan herhangi birini güvenle kullanabilirler.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- 1. Aksoy S, Kelahmet U, Hincal E, Oz U, Orhan K. Comparison of linear and angular measurements in CBCT scans using 2D and 3D rendering software. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 2016;30:777-84.
- 2. Sangmin J, and Lee KC. Comparison of cephalometric measurements between conventional and automatic cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural network. Prog Orthod 2021;22:1-8.
- 3. Faliya N, Mamatha J, Doshi J, Gandhi P, Mathakiya L, Bind P. Comparing the Efficacy between OneCeph digital software versus Manual Cephalometric Tracing. J Adv Health 2021; 2:2-13.
- 4. Liu JK, Chen YT, Cheng KS. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:535-40.
- 5. Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S, Roberts CT. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs, Part 2: image quality. Angle Orthod 1996; 66: 43-50.
- 6. Harrell WE Jr. 3-D Diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics. Semin Orthod 2009;15:35-41.
- 7. Rawat S, Jadhav VV, Paul P. A Comparative Analysis of Skeletal and Dental Parameters in Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate vs. Non-bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients in the Central Indian Population: A NemoCeph Study. Cureus 2024;16:2-13.
- 8. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. New Jersey, Prentice Hall; 2000. p. 11-5.
- 9. Kumar V, Ludlow J, Cevidanes LHS, Mol A. In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthe- sized cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2008;78:873-9.
- 10. Pavan KM, Praveen KN, Murthy S. Model analysis on a smartphone. J Clin Orthod 2012; 46:356–8.
- 11. Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Vogels DS 3rd, Vogels PB. 2014 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, Part 1: results and trends. J Clin Orthod 2014; 48:607-30.
- 12. Mohan A, Sivakumar A, Nalabothu P. Evaluation of accuracy and reliability of OneCeph digital cephalometric analysis in comparison with manual cephalometric analysis: A cross-sectional study. BDJ open 2021;7:1-4.
- 13. Khatoon B, Hill KB, Walmsley AD. Can we learn, teach and practise dentistry anywhere, anytime? Br Dent J 2013;215:345–7.
- 14. Richardson A. A comparison of traditional and computerized methods of cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod 1981;3:15–20.
- 15. Turner PJ, Weerakone S. An evaluation of the reproducibility of landmark identification using scanned cephalometric images. J Orthod 2001;28: 221–9.
- 16. Steiner, C. C. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39:729–55.
- 17. Erkan M, Gurel HG, Nur M, Demirel B. Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs. Eur J Orthod 2011; 34:318-21.
- 18. Yassir YA, Nabbat SA, and Hamdan HA. Evaluation of Semi-Automated Software and Application for Cephalometric Analysis. International Medical Journal 2021;28:16-20.
- 19. Paixao MB, Sobral MC, Vogel CJ, Martin de Araujo T. Comparative study between manual and digital cephalometric tracing using Dolphin Imaging software with lateral radio- graphs. Dent Press J Orthod 2010;15:123–30.
- 20. Santoro M, Jarjoura K, Cangialosi TJ. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped 2006;129:345–51.
- 21. Goracci, C, Ferrari M. Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC- aided, and manual cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod 2014;84:437–42.
- 22. Paul L, Tania SDM, Rathore S, Missier S, Shaga B. Comparison of accuracy and reliability of automated tracing Android app with conventional and semiautomated computer aided tracing software for cephalometric analysis - a cross-sectional study. Int J Orthod Rehabil 2022,13:39-51.
A Comparative Analysis of Angular Cephalometric Measurements Using VistaDent and NemoCeph Digital Software
Öz
Objective: The aim of this investigation was to compare the reliability of two different software programs, Vista Dent and NemoCeph for digital cephalometric tracing when used for angular measurements on 2D digital cephalometric radiographs.
Methods: A total of 300 cephalometric radiographs were chosen for this study. The Vista dent and Nemoceph computerized softwares programs were used to obtain cephalometric measurements from lateral cephalograms. The SNA and SNB angle values obtained by the two methods were evaluated through independent sample T-test and and the Mann-Whitney U Test was done to compare GoGn-SN angle between the two different computerized softwares programs. The Pearson correlation analysis was used to evaluate the consistency between the two measurement method.
Results: SNA, SNB, and GoGn-SN angles performed by the Vista dent and Nemoceph software (p > 0.05). It was obtained strong correlations between all the variables.
Conclusions: The measurements from the two computer-assisted cephalometric analysis are consistent. Clinicians can confidently use either of these programs.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Vista dent Nemoceph Steiner analysis Cephalometric radiographs
Kaynakça
- 1. Aksoy S, Kelahmet U, Hincal E, Oz U, Orhan K. Comparison of linear and angular measurements in CBCT scans using 2D and 3D rendering software. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 2016;30:777-84.
- 2. Sangmin J, and Lee KC. Comparison of cephalometric measurements between conventional and automatic cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural network. Prog Orthod 2021;22:1-8.
- 3. Faliya N, Mamatha J, Doshi J, Gandhi P, Mathakiya L, Bind P. Comparing the Efficacy between OneCeph digital software versus Manual Cephalometric Tracing. J Adv Health 2021; 2:2-13.
- 4. Liu JK, Chen YT, Cheng KS. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:535-40.
- 5. Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S, Roberts CT. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs, Part 2: image quality. Angle Orthod 1996; 66: 43-50.
- 6. Harrell WE Jr. 3-D Diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics. Semin Orthod 2009;15:35-41.
- 7. Rawat S, Jadhav VV, Paul P. A Comparative Analysis of Skeletal and Dental Parameters in Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate vs. Non-bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients in the Central Indian Population: A NemoCeph Study. Cureus 2024;16:2-13.
- 8. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. New Jersey, Prentice Hall; 2000. p. 11-5.
- 9. Kumar V, Ludlow J, Cevidanes LHS, Mol A. In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthe- sized cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2008;78:873-9.
- 10. Pavan KM, Praveen KN, Murthy S. Model analysis on a smartphone. J Clin Orthod 2012; 46:356–8.
- 11. Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Vogels DS 3rd, Vogels PB. 2014 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, Part 1: results and trends. J Clin Orthod 2014; 48:607-30.
- 12. Mohan A, Sivakumar A, Nalabothu P. Evaluation of accuracy and reliability of OneCeph digital cephalometric analysis in comparison with manual cephalometric analysis: A cross-sectional study. BDJ open 2021;7:1-4.
- 13. Khatoon B, Hill KB, Walmsley AD. Can we learn, teach and practise dentistry anywhere, anytime? Br Dent J 2013;215:345–7.
- 14. Richardson A. A comparison of traditional and computerized methods of cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod 1981;3:15–20.
- 15. Turner PJ, Weerakone S. An evaluation of the reproducibility of landmark identification using scanned cephalometric images. J Orthod 2001;28: 221–9.
- 16. Steiner, C. C. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39:729–55.
- 17. Erkan M, Gurel HG, Nur M, Demirel B. Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs. Eur J Orthod 2011; 34:318-21.
- 18. Yassir YA, Nabbat SA, and Hamdan HA. Evaluation of Semi-Automated Software and Application for Cephalometric Analysis. International Medical Journal 2021;28:16-20.
- 19. Paixao MB, Sobral MC, Vogel CJ, Martin de Araujo T. Comparative study between manual and digital cephalometric tracing using Dolphin Imaging software with lateral radio- graphs. Dent Press J Orthod 2010;15:123–30.
- 20. Santoro M, Jarjoura K, Cangialosi TJ. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped 2006;129:345–51.
- 21. Goracci, C, Ferrari M. Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC- aided, and manual cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod 2014;84:437–42.
- 22. Paul L, Tania SDM, Rathore S, Missier S, Shaga B. Comparison of accuracy and reliability of automated tracing Android app with conventional and semiautomated computer aided tracing software for cephalometric analysis - a cross-sectional study. Int J Orthod Rehabil 2022,13:39-51.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | İngilizce |
|---|---|
| Konular | Diş Hekimliği (Diğer) |
| Bölüm | Araştırma Makalesi |
| Yazarlar | |
| Erken Görünüm Tarihi | 22 Haziran 2025 |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 23 Haziran 2025 |
| Gönderilme Tarihi | 17 Şubat 2025 |
| Kabul Tarihi | 7 Nisan 2025 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2025 Cilt: 26 Sayı: 2 |
