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 Original Research
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction
Cephalometry used as an adjuvant tool in orthodontic diagnosis has undergone significant changes from manual tracing to computer assisted digital tracing cephalometric analysis system. The smart phone apps running in android or other operating systems were introduced recently for doing cephalometric analysis. Hence this study was done comparing the accuracy and reliability of automated tracing (Webceph Android app) with gold standard manual tracing and semi-automatic tracing (NemoCeph).
Materials and Methods
The study was performed on 39 Pre-treatment lateral cephalograms. 10 angular and 11 linear skeletal, dental and soft tissue parameters were assessed by tracing the cephalograms manually, digitally using Nemoceph software and Webceph app. The mean and standard deviation were calculated, the overall intergroup comparisons were done using ANOVA test and individual intergroup comparisons were done by post-hoc analysis using Sidak Test. The overall interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated between the three groups.
Results
Angular measurements such as Occlusal plane to SN (P< 0.05) and Nasolabial angle (P< 0.05) showed significant difference between the different tracing methods and the linear parameters such as N perpendicular to Point A (P< 0.05) and Wits Appraisal (P< 0.05) showed significant difference between the different tracing methods. The overall reliability statistics showed good agreement (P<0.05) among all three groups.
Conclusion
Automated tracing (WebCeph) had more landmark identification errors when compared with manual or semi- automatic tracing (Nemoceph). Both WebCeph and Nemoceph were superior in their reliability when compared to manual tracing, with Nemoceph demonstrating greater efficacy compared to WebCeph.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod. 1931;1(2):45-66.
Subramanian AK, Chen Y, Almalki A, Sivamurthy G, Kafle D. Cephalometric Analysis in Orthodontics Using Artificial Intelligence-A Comprehensive Review. Biomed Res Int. 2022 Jun 16;2022:1880113.
Chen SK, Chen YJ, Yao CC, Chang HF. Enhanced speed and precision of measurement in a computer-assisted digital cephalometric analysis system. Angle Orthod. 2004 Aug;74(4):501-7.
Erkan M, Gurel HG, Nur M, Demirel B. Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs. Eur J Orthod. 2012 Jun;34(3):318-21.
Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yao JC, Chang HF. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2004 Apr;74(2):155-61.
Kumar M, Kumari S, Chandna A, Konark, Singh A, Kumar H, Punita. Comparative Evaluation of CephNinja for Android and NemoCeph for Computer for Cephalometric Analysis: A Study to Evaluate the Diagnostic Performance of CephNinja for Cephalometric Analysis. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2020 Jun 15;10(3):286-291.
CORREIA TRGS, SENA LMFd, SILVA JSPd, PEREIRA HSG. Cephalometric analysis: concordance between software. Rev Gaucha Odontol. 2017;65:321-5.
Goutham N, Neeharika S, Vedavathi H, Ramegowda S, Shailaja A. Handy Gadget for Cephalometric Analysis: A Systematic Review. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2021;55(1):64-71.
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):1-4.
Yassir YA, Salman AR, Nabbat SA. The accuracy and reliability of WebCeph for cephalometric analysis. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2021 Sep 22;17(1):57-66.
Katyal D, Balakrishnan N. Evaluation of the accuracy and reliability of WebCeph – An artificial intelligence-based online software. APOS Trends Orthod 2022;12:271-6.
Hlongwa P. Cephalometric analysis: manual tracing of a lateral cephalogram. S Afr Dent J. 2019 ;74(6) :318-22.
Tikku T, Khanna R, Maurya RP, Srivastava K, Bhushan R. Comparative evaluation of cephalometric measurements of monitor-displayed images by Nemoceph software and its hard copy by manual tracing. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2014 Jan-Apr;4(1):35-41.
Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod. 1971 Aug;60(2):111-27.
Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF, Chen KC. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2000 Oct;70(5):387-92.
Tsolakis IA, Tsolakis AI, Elshebiny T, Matthaios S, Palomo JM. Comparing a Fully Automated Cephalometric Tracing Method to a Manual Tracing Method for Orthodontic Diagnosis. J Clin Med. 2022 Nov 20;11(22):6854.
Goracci C, Ferrari M. Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod. 2014 May;84(3):437-42.
Polat-Ozsoy O, Gokcelik A, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods. Eur J Orthod. 2009 Jun;31(3):254-9.s.