Aim: To assess the reliability of the OneCeph application in comparison with the Nemoceph cephalometric analysis program in determining five angular and five linear parameters.
Materials and methods: A total of 54 pretreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs were obtained using a digital cephalometer (Gendex Orthoralix 9200 developmental defects of enamel (DDE), Gendex Dental Systems) were taken. After the identification of landmarks, five angular and five linear measurements were recorded, and cephalometric analysis was performed using computer-based software Nemoceph, and an android-based application OneCeph, respectively. The reliability (intraexaminer error) was evaluated using Spearman's correlation.
Results: Spearman's correlation coefficient of angular and linear parameters for each method was r ≥ 0.8. A statistically significant difference was found between Nemoceph and OneCeph for two parameters, namely sella, nasion and point A (SNA) (p = 0.049) and upper incisor to nasion-point A (UI-NA) (mm) (p = 0.03), respectively.
Conclusion: Using five angular and five linear measurements, the reliability of OneCeph was compared with the Nemoceph cephalometric analysis program, and the difference was found to be clinically insignificant for most of the parameters.
Clinical significance: The android-based cephalometric application OneCeph seems to be reliable and could be considered as an alternative to Nemoceph. Thus, it fulfills the need for instant cephalometric values anytime and anywhere, especially in clinical practice.
Naragond A, Kenganal S, Sagarkar R, et al. Diagnostic limitations of cephalometrics in orthodontics: areview. J Dent Med Sci 2012;3(1):30–35. DOI: 10.9790/0853-0313035
Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Vogels DS III, et al. 2014 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, part 1: results and trends. J Clin Orthod 2014;48(10):607–630. PMID: 25416338
Kumar M, Kumari S, Chandna A, et al. Comparative evaluation of CephNinja for android and Nemoceph for computer for cephalometric analysis: a study to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CephNinja for cephalometric analysis. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2020;10(3):286–291. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_4_20
Liu JK, Chen YT, Cheng KS. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118(5):535–540. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2000.110168
Erkan M, Gurel HG, Nur M, et al. Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs. Eur J Orthod 2012;34(3):318–321. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr008
Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, et al. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod 2007;29(1):105–108. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjl065
AlBarakati SF, Kula KS, Ghoneima AA. The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41(1):11–17. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/37010910
Fiore P. How to evaluate mobile health applications: a scoping review. Stud Health Technol Inform 2017;234:109–114. DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-742-9-109
Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF, et al. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod 2000;70(5):387–392. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2000)070<0387:COLIIT>2.0.CO;2
Ongkosuwito EM, Katsaros C, Hof MAV, et al. The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of analog and digital methods. Eur J Orthod 2002;24(6):655–665. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/24.6.655
Chen Y, Chen S, Yao JC, et al. The effects of differences in landmark identification on 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
Goracci C, Ferrari M. Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod 2014;84(3):437–442. DOI: 10.2319/061513-451.1
Tikku T, Khanna R, Maurya RP, 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 2014;4(1):35–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2013.11.002
Shah AR, Karandikar G, Ravindranath VK, et al. A comparative study of reliability and accuracy of manual and digital lateral cephalometric tracing. J Contemp Dent 2016;6(1):15–18. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10031-1136
Sommer T, Ciesielski R, Erbersdobler J, et al. Precision of cephalometric analysis via fully and semiautomatic evaluation of digital lateral cephalographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009;38(6):401–416. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/85543699
Santoro M, Jarjoura K, Cangialosi TJ. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129(3):345–351. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.010
Zamrik OM, Iseri H. The reliability and reproducibility of an android cephalometric smartphone application in comparison with the conventional method. Angle Orthod 2021;91(2):236–242. DOI: 10.2319/042320-345.1
Livas C, Delli K, Spijkervet FKL, et al. Concurrent validity and reliability of cephalometric analysis using smartphone apps and computer software. Angle Orthod 2019;89(6):889–896. DOI: 10.2319/021919-124.1
Sekiguchi T, Savara BS. Variability of cephalometric landmarks used for face growth studies. Am J Orthod 1972;61(6):603–618. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(72)90109-1
Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S, et al. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs, part 2: image quality. Angle Orthod 1996;66(1):43–50. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1996)066<0043:DIOCRP>2.3.CO;2
Shettigar P, Shetty S, Naik RD, et al. A comparative evaluation of the reliability of an android-based app and computerized cephalometric tracing program for orthodontic cephalometric analysis. Biomed Pharmacol J 2019;12(1):341–346. DOI: 10.13005/bpj/1645