Efficacy of a Newly Designed Cephalometric Analysis Software for McNamara Analysis in Comparison with Dolphin Software

Overview

Journal J Dent (Tehran)

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2015 May 26

PMID 26005455

Citations 5

Authors

Mahtab Nouri

Shadi Hamidiaval

Alireza Akbarzadeh Baghban

Mohammad Basafa

Mohammad Fahim

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Cephalometric norms of McNamara analysis have been studied in various populations due to their optimal efficiency. Dolphin cephalometric software greatly enhances the conduction of this analysis for orthodontic measurements. However, Dolphin is very expensive and cannot be afforded by many clinicians in developing countries. A suitable alternative software program in Farsi/English will greatly help Farsi speaking clinicians. The present study aimed to develop an affordable Iranian cephalometric analysis software program and compare it with Dolphin, the standard software available on the market for cephalometric analysis.

Materials And Methods: In this diagnostic, descriptive study, 150 lateral cephalograms of normal occlusion individuals were selected in Mashhad and Qazvin, two major cities of Iran mainly populated with Fars ethnicity, the main Iranian ethnic group. After tracing the cephalograms, the McNamara analysis standards were measured both with Dolphin and the new software. The cephalometric software was designed using Microsoft Visual C++ program in Windows XP. Measurements made with the new software were compared with those of Dolphin software on both series of cephalograms. The validity and reliability were tested using intra-class correlation coefficient.

Results: Calculations showed a very high correlation between the results of the Iranian cephalometric analysis software and Dolphin. This confirms the validity and optimal efficacy of the newly designed software (ICC 0.570-1.0).

Conclusion: According to our results, the newly designed software has acceptable validity and reliability and can be used for orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning and assessment of treatment outcome.

Citing Articles

Comparison of semi and fully automated artificial intelligence driven softwares and manual system for cephalometric analysis.

Zaheer R, Shafique H, Khalid Z, Shahid R, Jan A, Zahoor T BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024; 24(1):271.

PMID: 39334124 PMC: 11428328. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-024-02664-3.

Reproducibility of Computerized Cephalometric Analysis Software Compared with Conventional Manual Tracing for Analyzing Skeletal Stability After Orthognathic Surgery.

Thet P, Kaboosaya B J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2023; 22(4):833-840.

PMID: 38105843 PMC: 10719199. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-023-02071-7.

Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability of Cephalometric Measurements Performed on Smartphone-Based Application and Computer-Based Imaging Software: A Comparative Study.

Chugh V, Bhatia N, Shastri D, Shankar S, Singh S, Sardana R Turk J Orthod. 2023; 36(2):94-100.

PMID: 37346006 PMC: 10318850. DOI: 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2022.60.

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.

Kumar M, Kumari S, Chandna A, Konark , Singh A, Kumar H J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2020; 10(3):286-291.

PMID: 32802774 PMC: 7402247. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_4_20.

Reliability Assessment of Orthodontic Apps for Cephalometrics.

Aksakalli S, Yilanci H, Gorukmez E, Ramoglu S Turk J Orthod. 2018; 29(4):98-102.

PMID: 30112482 PMC: 6007603. DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2016.1618.

References

Polat-Ozsoy O, Gokcelik A, Toygar Memikoglu T . Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods. Eur J Orthod. 2009; 31(3):254-9. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn121. View

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. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2005.04.003. View

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. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjp022. View

Silveira H, Silveira H, Dalla-Bona R, Abdala D, Bertoldi R, von Wangenheim A . Software system for calibrating examiners in cephalometric point identification. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(3):400-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.018. View

Bansal N, Singla J, Gera G, Gupta M, Kaur G . Reliability of natural head position in orthodontic diagnosis: A cephalometric study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012; 3(2):180-3. PMC: 3425102. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.96824. View

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. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn041. View

Thilander B, Persson M, Adolfsson U . Roentgen-cephalometric standards for a Swedish population. A longitudinal study between the ages of 5 and 31 years. Eur J Orthod. 2005; 27(4):370-89. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cji033. View

Baskin H, Cisneros G . A comparison of two computer cephalometric programs. J Clin Orthod. 1997; 31(4):231-3. View

McNamara Jr J . A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod. 1984; 86(6):449-69. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9416(84)90352-x. View

10.

Ahmad Akhoundi M, Shirani G, Arshad M, Heidar H, Sodagar A . Comparison of an imaging software and manual prediction of soft tissue changes after orthognathic surgery. J Dent (Tehran). 2012; 9(3):178-87. PMC: 3484821. View

11.

Magro-Filho O, Magro-Ernica N, Queiroz T, Aranega A, Garcia Jr I . Comparative study of 2 software programs for predicting profile changes in Class III patients having double-jaw orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(4):452.e1-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.02.027. View

12.

Ravindranath S, Krishnaswamy N, Sundaram V . Comparison of two imaging programs in predicting the soft tissue changes with mandibular advancement surgery. Orthodontics (Chic.). 2012; 12(4):354-65. View

13.

Bruntz L, Palomo J, Baden S, Hans M . A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(3):340-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.029. View

14.

Lundstrom A, Lundstrom F, LEBRET L, MOORREES C . Natural head position and natural head orientation: basic considerations in cephalometric analysis and research. Eur J Orthod. 1995; 17(2):111-20. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/17.2.111. View