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

IF 0.1 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
P. Leevan, S.D.Milling Tania, Sonali Rathore, Dr.Sheloni Missier, Dr. Bevin Shaga
{"title":"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","authors":"P. Leevan, S.D.Milling Tania, Sonali Rathore, Dr.Sheloni Missier, Dr. Bevin Shaga","doi":"10.56501/intjorthodrehabil.v13i4.650","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nIntroduction\nCephalometry 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).\nMaterials and Methods\nThe 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.\nResults\nAngular 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.\nConclusion\nAutomated 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.\n\n\n","PeriodicalId":29888,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56501/intjorthodrehabil.v13i4.650","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

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.
自动追踪Android应用程序与常规和半自动计算机辅助追踪软件在头颅测量分析中的准确性和可靠性比较——一项横断面研究
头影测量作为正畸诊断的辅助工具,已经发生了从手动追踪到计算机辅助数字追踪头影测量分析系统的重大变化。最近推出了在安卓或其他操作系统中运行的智能手机应用程序,用于进行头部测量分析。因此,本研究将自动追踪(Webceph Android应用程序)与金标准手动追踪和半自动追踪(NemoCeph)的准确性和可靠性进行了比较。通过使用Nemoceph软件和Webceph应用程序手动、数字追踪头影图,评估10个角度和11个线性骨骼、牙齿和软组织参数。计算平均值和标准差,使用ANOVA检验进行总体组间比较,使用Sidak检验通过事后分析进行个体组间比较。计算三组之间的总体类间相关系数(ICC)。结果咬合面至SN(P<0.05)和鼻唇角(P<0.01)等角度测量结果显示,不同追踪方法之间存在显著差异,垂直于A点的N(P<0.001)和Wits Assessment(P<0.005)等线性参数显示,不同的追踪方法之间有显著差异。三组间的总体信度统计结果一致(P<0.05)。结论与手动或半自动追踪(Nemoceph)相比,自动追踪(WebCeph)具有更多的标志性识别错误。与手动追踪相比,WebCeph和Nemoceph的可靠性都更高,与WebCeph相比,Nemocep表现出更大的疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation
International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信