电荷耦合装置成像系统获取的头影测量射线照相测量的可靠性和再现性

IF 0.2 Q4 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
A. Abdelrahim, A. Abuaffan
{"title":"电荷耦合装置成像系统获取的头影测量射线照相测量的可靠性和再现性","authors":"A. Abdelrahim, A. Abuaffan","doi":"10.4103/jhnps.jhnps_15_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To evaluate and compare the reliability, reproducibility, and speed of two cephalometric tracing methods computer-aided cephalometric tracing and manual tracing. Materials and Methods: This was an analytical, cross-sectional study. One hundred and three pretreatment cephalometric radiographs were randomly selected from the orthodontics department of a public university. Twelve cephalometric landmarks were identified, and fifteen measurements were calculated both manually and digitally using Vistadent OC software. The reliability of measurements was assessed for each method by applying the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Paired t-test was used to compare the measurements' reproducibility and time difference between the two methods. Results: All angular and linear measurements for both the methods showed a range of moderate correlation (0.8 ≥ ICC ≥0.5) to strong correlation (ICC ≥0.8) except for L1-MAD, which displayed a poor correlation for both manual and digital tracing, (ICC = 0.36 and 0.33, respectively), as well as digital tracing of interincisal angle (ICC = 0.36). No statistically significant differences between the two methods were observed for all angular and linear measurements except upper anterior facial height (UAFH) and lower anterior facial height (P = 0.000). There was a statistically significant time difference between the two techniques (P = 0.000). The mean tracing time of the operator for single tracing was 18.02 min for manual tracing and 8.85 min when using the Vistadent program. Conclusion: Cephalometric measurements in conventional manual and digital cephalometric analysis are highly reliable. Although the reproducibility of some measurements between two methods showed statistically significant differences, most differences were considered minimal and clinically acceptable. Computer-assisted cephalometric analysis proved to be more time-efficient.","PeriodicalId":41774,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Head & Neck Physicians and Surgeons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability and reproducibility of measurements in cephalometric radiography acquired by a charge-coupled device imaging system\",\"authors\":\"A. Abdelrahim, A. Abuaffan\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jhnps.jhnps_15_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To evaluate and compare the reliability, reproducibility, and speed of two cephalometric tracing methods computer-aided cephalometric tracing and manual tracing. Materials and Methods: This was an analytical, cross-sectional study. One hundred and three pretreatment cephalometric radiographs were randomly selected from the orthodontics department of a public university. Twelve cephalometric landmarks were identified, and fifteen measurements were calculated both manually and digitally using Vistadent OC software. The reliability of measurements was assessed for each method by applying the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Paired t-test was used to compare the measurements' reproducibility and time difference between the two methods. Results: All angular and linear measurements for both the methods showed a range of moderate correlation (0.8 ≥ ICC ≥0.5) to strong correlation (ICC ≥0.8) except for L1-MAD, which displayed a poor correlation for both manual and digital tracing, (ICC = 0.36 and 0.33, respectively), as well as digital tracing of interincisal angle (ICC = 0.36). No statistically significant differences between the two methods were observed for all angular and linear measurements except upper anterior facial height (UAFH) and lower anterior facial height (P = 0.000). There was a statistically significant time difference between the two techniques (P = 0.000). The mean tracing time of the operator for single tracing was 18.02 min for manual tracing and 8.85 min when using the Vistadent program. Conclusion: Cephalometric measurements in conventional manual and digital cephalometric analysis are highly reliable. Although the reproducibility of some measurements between two methods showed statistically significant differences, most differences were considered minimal and clinically acceptable. Computer-assisted cephalometric analysis proved to be more time-efficient.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41774,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Head & Neck Physicians and Surgeons\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Head & Neck Physicians and Surgeons\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jhnps.jhnps_15_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Head & Neck Physicians and Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jhnps.jhnps_15_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评价和比较计算机辅助头像追踪和人工头像追踪两种头像追踪方法的可靠性、再现性和速度。材料和方法:这是一项分析性横断面研究。从某公立大学正畸科随机抽取预处理头颅x线片103张。确定了12个头颅测量标志,并使用Vistadent OC软件手动和数字计算了15个测量值。采用类内相关系数(intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC)评价各方法测量结果的可靠性。采用配对t检验比较两种方法测量结果的重复性和时间差。结果:两种方法的所有角度和线性测量结果均显示中等相关性(0.8≥ICC≥0.5)至强相关性(ICC≥0.8),除了L1-MAD,其与手工和数字示图的相关性较差(ICC分别为0.36和0.33),以及数字示图的内切角(ICC = 0.36)。两种方法之间除了上前面部高度(UAFH)和下前面部高度外,所有角度和线性测量均无统计学差异(P = 0.000)。两种方法的时间差异有统计学意义(P = 0.000)。单次人工追踪平均追踪时间为18.02 min,使用Vistadent程序时平均追踪时间为8.85 min。结论:头颅测量在传统手工和数字头颅测量分析中具有较高的可靠性。虽然两种方法之间的一些测量结果的可重复性显示出统计学上的显著差异,但大多数差异被认为是最小的,临床上是可以接受的。计算机辅助的头颅测量分析被证明更省时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reliability and reproducibility of measurements in cephalometric radiography acquired by a charge-coupled device imaging system
Objective: To evaluate and compare the reliability, reproducibility, and speed of two cephalometric tracing methods computer-aided cephalometric tracing and manual tracing. Materials and Methods: This was an analytical, cross-sectional study. One hundred and three pretreatment cephalometric radiographs were randomly selected from the orthodontics department of a public university. Twelve cephalometric landmarks were identified, and fifteen measurements were calculated both manually and digitally using Vistadent OC software. The reliability of measurements was assessed for each method by applying the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Paired t-test was used to compare the measurements' reproducibility and time difference between the two methods. Results: All angular and linear measurements for both the methods showed a range of moderate correlation (0.8 ≥ ICC ≥0.5) to strong correlation (ICC ≥0.8) except for L1-MAD, which displayed a poor correlation for both manual and digital tracing, (ICC = 0.36 and 0.33, respectively), as well as digital tracing of interincisal angle (ICC = 0.36). No statistically significant differences between the two methods were observed for all angular and linear measurements except upper anterior facial height (UAFH) and lower anterior facial height (P = 0.000). There was a statistically significant time difference between the two techniques (P = 0.000). The mean tracing time of the operator for single tracing was 18.02 min for manual tracing and 8.85 min when using the Vistadent program. Conclusion: Cephalometric measurements in conventional manual and digital cephalometric analysis are highly reliable. Although the reproducibility of some measurements between two methods showed statistically significant differences, most differences were considered minimal and clinically acceptable. Computer-assisted cephalometric analysis proved to be more time-efficient.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Head & Neck Physicians and Surgeons
Journal of Head & Neck Physicians and Surgeons MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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