Accuracy and Tracing Time of Cephalometric Analyses on a Tablet or Desktop Computer : A Prospective Study

Overview

Journal Head Face Med

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Dentistry
General Medicine
Orthopedics

Date 2024 Feb 12

PMID 38347578

Authors

Moritz Kanemeier

Claudius Middelberg

Thomas Stamm

Felix Albert

Ariane Hohoff

Jonas Q Schmid

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: This prospective study aimed to evaluate the influence of the computer type (tablet or desktop) on accuracy and tracing time of cephalometric analyses.

Methods: Dental students used a web-based application specifically developed for this purpose to perform cephalometric analyses on tablet and desktop computers. Landmark locations and timestamps were exported to measure the accuracy, successful detection rate and tracing time. Reference landmarks were established by six experienced orthodontists. Statistical analysis included reliability assessment, descriptive statistics, and linear mixed effect models.

Results: Over a period of 8 semesters a total of 277 cephalometric analyses by 161 students were included. The interrater reliability of the orthodontists establishing the reference coordinates was excellent (ICC > 0.9). For the students, the mean landmark deviation was 2.05 mm and the successful detection rate for the clinically acceptable threshold of 2 mm suggested in the literature was 68.6%, with large variations among landmarks. No effect of the computer type on accuracy and tracing time of the cephalometric analyses could be found.

Conclusion: The use of tablet computers for cephalometric analyses can be recommended.

References

Sayar G, Kilinc D . Manual tracing versus smartphone application (app) tracing: a comparative study. Acta Odontol Scand. 2017; 75(8):588-594. DOI: 10.1080/00016357.2017.1364420. View

Uysal T, Ramoglu S, Basciftci F, Sari Z . Chronologic age and skeletal maturation of the cervical vertebrae and hand-wrist: is there a relationship?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(5):622-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.01.031. View

Hagemann K, Vollmer D, Niegel T, Ehmer U, Reuter I . Prospective study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional and digital lateral headfilms. J Orofac Orthop. 2000; 61(2):91-9. DOI: 10.1007/BF01300351. View

Zamrik O, Iseri H . The reliability and reproducibility of an Android cephalometric smartphone application in comparison with the conventional method. Angle Orthod. 2020; 91(2):236-242. PMC: 8028486. DOI: 10.2319/042320-345.1. View

Erkan M, Gurel H, Nur M, Demirel B . Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs. Eur J Orthod. 2011; 34(3):318-21. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr008. View

Shintaku W, Scarbecz M, Venturin J . Evaluation of interproximal caries using the IPad 2 and a liquid crystal display monitor. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012; 113(5):e40-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2011.11.008. View

Goracci C, Ferrari M . Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod. 2013; 84(3):437-42. PMC: 8667486. DOI: 10.2319/061513-451.1. View

Proffit W, Turvey T, Phillips C . The hierarchy of stability and predictability in orthognathic surgery with rigid fixation: an update and extension. Head Face Med. 2007; 3:21. PMC: 1876453. DOI: 10.1186/1746-160X-3-21. View

Savage A, Showfety K, Yancey J . Repeated measures analysis of geometrically constructed and directly determined cephalometric points. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987; 91(4):295-9. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90169-7. View

10.

OReilly M, Yanniello G . Mandibular growth changes and maturation of cervical vertebrae--a longitudinal cephalometric study. Angle Orthod. 1988; 58(2):179-84. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1988)058<0179:MGCAMO>2.0.CO;2. View

11.

Tewes S, Rodt T, Marquardt S, Evangelidou E, Wacker F, von Falck C . Evaluation of the use of a tablet computer with a high-resolution display for interpreting emergency CT scans. Rofo. 2013; 185(11):1063-9. DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1350155. View

12.

Stabrun A, Danielsen K . Precision in cephalometric landmark identification. Eur J Orthod. 1982; 4(3):185-96. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/4.3.185. View

13.

Aksakalli S, Yilanci H, Gorukmez E, Ramoglu S . Reliability Assessment of Orthodontic Apps for Cephalometrics. Turk J Orthod. 2018; 29(4):98-102. PMC: 6007603. DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2016.1618. View

14.

Kaersgaard J, Christensen M, Sondergaard P, Naukkarinen J . Gender differences in dentistry: A qualitative study on students' intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for entering dentistry at higher education. Eur J Dent Educ. 2020; 25(3):495-505. DOI: 10.1111/eje.12625. View

15.

Le V, Kang J, Oh I, Kim J, Yang Y, Lee D . Effectiveness of Human-Artificial Intelligence Collaboration in Cephalometric Landmark Detection. J Pers Med. 2022; 12(3). PMC: 8954049. DOI: 10.3390/jpm12030387. View

16.

Tadinada A, Mahdian M, Sheth S, Chandhoke T, Gopalakrishna A, Potluri A . The reliability of tablet computers in depicting maxillofacial radiographic landmarks. Imaging Sci Dent. 2015; 45(3):175-80. PMC: 4574055. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2015.45.3.175. View

17.

Murphy A, Belcher H . A novel method for sterile intra-operative iPad use. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011; 65(3):403-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2011.08.037. View

18.

Schulze R, Gloede M, Doll G . Landmark identification on direct digital versus film-based cephalometric radiographs: a human skull study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122(6):635-42. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.129191. View

19.

Kunz F, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Widmaier L, Zeman F, Boldt J . Assessment of the quality of different commercial providers using artificial intelligence for automated cephalometric analysis compared to human orthodontic experts. J Orofac Orthop. 2023; . DOI: 10.1007/s00056-023-00491-1. View

20.

Chugh V, Bhatia N, Shastri D, Shankar S, Singh S, Sardana R . Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability of Cephalometric Measurements Performed on Smartphone-Based Application and Computer-Based Imaging Software: A Comparative Study. Turk J Orthod. 2023; 36(2):94-100. PMC: 10318850. DOI: 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2022.60. View