Cargando…

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

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the reliability of cephalometric analysis using a smartphone-based application with conventional computer-based imaging software. METHODS: Pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 50 subjects (26 males, 24 females; mean age, 19.2 years; ±4.2) were traced using the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chugh, Vinay Kumar, Bhatia, Navleen Kaur, Shastri, Dipti, Shankar, Sam Prasanth, Singh, Surjit, Sardana, Rinkle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Galenos Publishing 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10318850/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37346006
http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2022.60
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the reliability of cephalometric analysis using a smartphone-based application with conventional computer-based imaging software. METHODS: Pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 50 subjects (26 males, 24 females; mean age, 19.2 years; ±4.2) were traced using the OneCeph® application and Dolphin imaging software(®). Two independent observers identified seventeen landmarks and measured fourteen cephalometric measurements at an interval of. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability were evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Student’s t-test was used to compare the means of two measurement methods for observer 1 and observer 2. Additionally, the time taken to complete the cephalometric measurements was also compared between the two methods. RESULTS: Good (ICC 0.75-0.90) to excellent (ICC 0.90-1.00) interobserver and intraobserver reliability was observed for all hard and soft tissue measurements with both methods. No significant differences were found between the two measurement methods for both observers (p<0.05). OneCeph application took significantly more time to complete the analysis than Dolphin imaging software (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Cephalometric measurements made through a smartphone-based application showed good to excellent interobserver and intraobserver reliability and are comparable with the computer-based software. Therefore, it can be recommended for clinical use. The time taken to complete the cephalometric measurements was more with a smartphone-based application (OneCeph application) compared to computer-based software (Dolphin imaging software).