Cargando…

Comparison of two three-dimensional cephalometric analysis computer software

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional cephalometric analyses are getting more attraction in orthodontics. The aim of this study was to compare two softwares to evaluate three-dimensional cephalometric analyses of orthodontic treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty cone beam computed tomography ima...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sawchuk, Dena, Alhadlaq, Adel, Alkhadra, Thamer, Carlyle, Terry D, Kusnoto, Budi, El-Bialy, Tarek
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4238078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25426454
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2278-0203.143230
_version_ 1782345457152819200
author Sawchuk, Dena
Alhadlaq, Adel
Alkhadra, Thamer
Carlyle, Terry D
Kusnoto, Budi
El-Bialy, Tarek
author_facet Sawchuk, Dena
Alhadlaq, Adel
Alkhadra, Thamer
Carlyle, Terry D
Kusnoto, Budi
El-Bialy, Tarek
author_sort Sawchuk, Dena
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional cephalometric analyses are getting more attraction in orthodontics. The aim of this study was to compare two softwares to evaluate three-dimensional cephalometric analyses of orthodontic treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty cone beam computed tomography images were obtained using i-CAT(®) imaging system from patient's records as part of their regular orthodontic records. The images were analyzed using InVivoDental5.0 (Anatomage Inc.) and 3DCeph™ (University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA) software. Before and after orthodontic treatments data were analyzed using t-test. RESULTS: Reliability test using interclass correlation coefficient was stronger for InVivoDental5.0 (0.83-0.98) compared with 3DCeph™ (0.51-0.90). Paired t-test comparison of the two softwares shows no statistical significant difference in the measurements made in the two softwares. CONCLUSIONS: InVivoDental5.0 measurements are more reproducible and user friendly when compared to 3DCeph™. No statistical difference between the two softwares in linear or angular measurements. 3DCeph™ is more time-consuming in performing three-dimensional analysis compared with InVivoDental5.0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4238078
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42380782014-11-25 Comparison of two three-dimensional cephalometric analysis computer software Sawchuk, Dena Alhadlaq, Adel Alkhadra, Thamer Carlyle, Terry D Kusnoto, Budi El-Bialy, Tarek J Orthod Sci Original Article BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional cephalometric analyses are getting more attraction in orthodontics. The aim of this study was to compare two softwares to evaluate three-dimensional cephalometric analyses of orthodontic treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty cone beam computed tomography images were obtained using i-CAT(®) imaging system from patient's records as part of their regular orthodontic records. The images were analyzed using InVivoDental5.0 (Anatomage Inc.) and 3DCeph™ (University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA) software. Before and after orthodontic treatments data were analyzed using t-test. RESULTS: Reliability test using interclass correlation coefficient was stronger for InVivoDental5.0 (0.83-0.98) compared with 3DCeph™ (0.51-0.90). Paired t-test comparison of the two softwares shows no statistical significant difference in the measurements made in the two softwares. CONCLUSIONS: InVivoDental5.0 measurements are more reproducible and user friendly when compared to 3DCeph™. No statistical difference between the two softwares in linear or angular measurements. 3DCeph™ is more time-consuming in performing three-dimensional analysis compared with InVivoDental5.0. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4238078/ /pubmed/25426454 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2278-0203.143230 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Orthodontic Science http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Sawchuk, Dena
Alhadlaq, Adel
Alkhadra, Thamer
Carlyle, Terry D
Kusnoto, Budi
El-Bialy, Tarek
Comparison of two three-dimensional cephalometric analysis computer software
title Comparison of two three-dimensional cephalometric analysis computer software
title_full Comparison of two three-dimensional cephalometric analysis computer software
title_fullStr Comparison of two three-dimensional cephalometric analysis computer software
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two three-dimensional cephalometric analysis computer software
title_short Comparison of two three-dimensional cephalometric analysis computer software
title_sort comparison of two three-dimensional cephalometric analysis computer software
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4238078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25426454
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2278-0203.143230
work_keys_str_mv AT sawchukdena comparisonoftwothreedimensionalcephalometricanalysiscomputersoftware
AT alhadlaqadel comparisonoftwothreedimensionalcephalometricanalysiscomputersoftware
AT alkhadrathamer comparisonoftwothreedimensionalcephalometricanalysiscomputersoftware
AT carlyleterryd comparisonoftwothreedimensionalcephalometricanalysiscomputersoftware
AT kusnotobudi comparisonoftwothreedimensionalcephalometricanalysiscomputersoftware
AT elbialytarek comparisonoftwothreedimensionalcephalometricanalysiscomputersoftware