World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Accuracy of Different Cephalometric Analyses Using NemoCeph Digital Software and Hand-traced Cephalometric Analyses: A Cephalometric Study

RV Sangeetha, TR Prasanna, KT Manjula, V Madhusudan

Keywords : Cephalometrics, Manual tracing, NemoCeph software tracing

Citation Information : Sangeetha R, Prasanna T, Manjula K, Madhusudan V. Comparison of Accuracy of Different Cephalometric Analyses Using NemoCeph Digital Software and Hand-traced Cephalometric Analyses: A Cephalometric Study. World J Dent 2022; 13 (6):630-640.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2098

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 26-08-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: The present study was done to assess the accuracy of various cephalometric analyses performed using NemoCeph cephalometric software (digital approach) with manual hand tracing. Materials and methods: This study was carried out by two examiners, 50 lateral cephalograms were selected, 11 angular and eight linear measurements were assessed using both manual and digital methods. Manual tracing is done by placing an acetate tracing sheet on the lateral cephalogram. For digital tracing, the lateral cephalogram is scanned and calibrated with a ruler which was incorporated in the cephalostat at the time of radiographic exposure and traced using NemoCeph software. Results: On intraclass correlation, NemoCeph measurements showed good agreement as hand measurements for majority of the values, suggesting good reliability. Pearson's correlation showed weak correlation with IMPA and AO-BO for examiner 1 and Pog-NB and lower lip-S line for examiner 2. Paired t-test showed significant difference (p < 0.05) for SNB, ANB, occlusal plane, FMA, IMPA, upper lip-S line, lower lip-S line, S-Go, N-Me, and AO-BO for both the examiners. Even though statistically significant differences were found for the majority of the values, all of which lie within two units, except for IMPA and S-Go. Conclusion: Digital cephalometrics has many advantages over manual tracing such as ease of use, instant image acquisition and storage, and time-saving. With further research using cephalometric software and proven clinical performance, digital cephalometric tracings can be preferred over manual methods. Clinical significance: In clinical settings, digital cephalometrics minimizes tracing errors, decreases manual work, and saves a significant amount of time. Moreover, it aids in immediate diagnosis and treatment planning.

PDF Share
  1. Krishnaraj R, Balasubramaniam MR, Shetty RS, et al. A comparison of conventional, digitized and digital methods of hard tissue cephalometric parameters. SRM J Res Dent Sci 2010;1(1):68–74. IP:
  2. Johnson DR, English J, Gallereno R. Comparison of hand traced & computerized cephalograms: landmark identification measurement and superimposition accuracy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008;133(4):556–564. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.03.041
  3. Vithanaarachchi N, Chandrasiri AC, Nawarathna LN. A comparison of cephalometric measurements obtained using conventional and digital methods. Ceylon Med J 2020;65(3):39–45. DOI: 10.4038/cmj.v65i3.9184
  4. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1971;60(2):111–127. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(71)90028-5
  5. Mitra R, Chauhan A, Sardana S, et al. Determination of comparative accuracy of manual, semi digital and fully digital cephalometric tracing methods in orthodontics. J Dent Def Sect 2020;14(2):52–58. DOI: 10.4103/JODD.JODD_24_20
  6. Tikku T, Khanna R, Maurya R, et al. Comparative evaluation of cephalometric measurements of monitor-displayed images by NemoCeph software and its hard copy by manual tracing. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2013;11(2):1–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2013.11.002
  7. Shakbari R, Pahlevankashi M, Eshghpour M, et al. Comparison of digital cephalometric tracing by Onyx Ceph software versus manual method. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2018:1–5. DOI: 10.15713/ins.ijcdmr.128
  8. Shaheed S, Iftikhar A, Rasool G, et al. Accuracy of linear cephalometric measurements with scanned lateral cephalograms. Pak Oral Dent J 2011;31(1):68–72.
  9. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yoa JC, et al. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod 2004;74(2):155–161. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0155:TEODIL>2.0.CO;2
  10. Farook MU, Khan MA, Imran S, et al. Assessing the reliability of digitized cephalometric analysis in comparison with manual cephalometric analysis. J Clin Diagn 2016;10(10):20–23. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/17735.8636
  11. Ajay SA, Dhananjaya G, Anandakrishna L. Evaluation of repeatability and reproducibility of manual and computerized method for cephalometric analysis. J Dent Orofac Res 2018;14(2):25–30.
  12. Zegan G, Dascal CG. The accuracy of manual and digital measurements on conventional lateral cephalograms. IEEE Int Conf E-Health Bioeng 2013;21–23. DOI: 10.1109/EHB.2013.6707367
  13. Kalra A, Goel S, Thadani M, et al. Comparison of cephalometric measurements obtained with conventional and digital methods and their reproducibility. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol 2010;22(4):S9–S12. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10011-1060
  14. Lalakiya H, Basavaraj, Agarwal C, et al. The comparison of computer aided digital cephalometric radiograph with manual tracing. J Adv 2016;4(1):621–626. ISSN 2320-5407.
  15. McClure SR, Sadowsky L, Ferreira A, et al. Reliability of digital versus conventional cephalometric radiology: a comparative evaluation of landmark identification error. 2005;11:98-110.
  16. Bruntz LQ, Palomo JM, Baden S, et al. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2006;130(3):340–348. DOI: DOI: 10.17795/ijo-4862
  17. Shah AR, Karandikar G, Ravindranath VK, et al. A comparative study of reliability and accuracy of manual & digital lateral cephalometric tracing. J Contemp Dent 2016;6(1):15–18. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10031-1136
  18. Ganna PS, Shetty SK, Yethadka MK, et al. An evaluation of errors in cephalometric measurement on scanned lateral cephalometric image using computerized cephalometric program and conventional tracing. J Ind Orthod Soc 2014;48(4):388–392. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjl065
  19. Paixao MB, Sobral MC, Vogel CJ, et al. Comparative study between manual & digital cephalometric tracing using Dolphin Imaging software with lateral radiographs. Dental Press J Orthod 2010;15(6);123–130.
  20. Kochar DG, Jayan B, Chopra SS, et al. Comparison of speed and precision of manual viz a viz computer assisted cephalometric measurements. J Pierre Fauchard Acad 2015;5(3):1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpfa.2015.05.003
  21. Durão AP, Morosolli A, Pittayapat P, et al. Cephalometric landmark variability among orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists: a comparative study. Imaging Sci Dent 2015;45(4):213–220. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2015.45.4.213
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.