Citation Information :
Azeez SM, Surji FF, Kadir SO, Karim R. Accuracy and Reliability of WebCeph Digital Cephalometric Analysis in Comparison with Conventional Cephalometric Analysis. World J Dent 2023; 14 (8):727-732.
Aim: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy and reliability of direct digital radiograph tracing using WebCeph, comparing it to manually tracing digital printouts.
Materials and methods: A single operator measured 12 linear and angular cephalometric parameters digitally and manually, which comprised 25 digital lateral cephalometric photographs. The difference in measurements obtained from manual to digital tracings was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and confidence interval (CI), while the intraexaminer error was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV).
Results: A comparison of hand and WebCeph tracing showed an excellent level of agreement except for upper incisor (UI) to nasion-point A (NA), Frankfort-mandibular plane angle (FMA), incisor mandibular plane angle (IMPA), and lower incisor (LI) to nasion-noint B (NB), which showed moderate to good agreement. Intraexaminer reliability was excellent for both manual and digital approaches.
Conclusion: In conclusion, except for UI to NA, FMA, IMPA, and LI to NB, all measurements in this study demonstrated excellent agreement between digital and manual tracing.
Clinical significance: It can be concluded that digital tracing with WebCeph is suitable for clinical uses and equivalent to manual cephalometric tracings. For everyday use and research, digital imaging may be preferred over analog methods due to the advantages of digital imaging in terms of storage, enhancement, and transmission quality.
Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971;60(2):111–127. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(71)90028-5
Chen SK, Chen YJ, Yao CC, et al. Enhanced speed and precision of measurement in a computer-assisted digital cephalometric analysis system. Angle Orthod 2004;74(4):501–507. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0501:ESAPOM>2.0.CO;2
Paixão MB, Sobral MC, Vogel CJ, et al. Comparative study between manual and digital cephalometric tracing using Dolphin Imaging software with lateral radiographs. Dental Press J Orthod 2010;15(6):123–130. DOI: 10.1590/S2176-94512010000600016
Iseri H, Acikbas A, Yilmaz O. The evaluation of accuracy and reliability of the measurement of cephalometric radiographs by tracing and direct digitization. Turk J Orthod 1992;5(1):1–6. DOI: 10.13076/1300-3550-5-1-1
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 and Radiology 2010;22(5):S9–S12. DOI: 0.5005/jp-journals-10011-1060
Arık SÖ, Ibragimov B, Xing L. Fully automated quantitative cephalometry using convolutional neural networks. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2017;4(1):014501. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.4.1.014501
Kunz F, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Zeman F, et al. Artificial intelligence in orthodontics : Evaluation of a fully automated cephalometric analysis using a customized convolutional neural network. J Orofac Orthop 2020;81(1):52–68. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-019-00203-8
Hwang HW, Park JH, Moon JH, et al. Automated identification of cephalometric landmarks: part 2-might it be better than human? Angle Orthod 2020;90(1):69–76. DOI: 10.2319/022019-129.1
Kim H, Shim E, Park J, et al. Web-based fully automated cephalometric analysis by deep learning. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2020;194:105513. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2020.105513
Hung K, Montalvao C, Tanaka R, et al. The use and performance of artificial intelligence applications in dental and maxillofacial radiology: A systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2020;49(1):20190107. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20190107
Yassir YA, Salman AR, Nabbat SA. The accuracy and reliability of WebCeph for cephalometric analysis. J Taibah Univ Med Sci 2022;17(1):57–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2021.08.010
Alqahtani H. Evaluation of an online website-based platform for cephalometric analysis. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020;121(1):53–57. DOI: 10.1016/j.jormas.2019.04.017
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
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
Ongkosuwito EM, Katsaros C, van 't Hof MA, et al. The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of analogue and digital methods. Eur J Orthod 2002;24(6):655–665. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/24.6.655
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
Naoumova J, Lindman R. A comparison of manual traced images and corresponding scanned radiographs digitally traced. Eur J Orthod 2009;31(3):247–253. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn110
Tsolakis IA, Gizani S, Panayi N, et al. Three-dimensional printing technology in orthodontics for dental models: a systematic review. Children (Basel) 2022;9(8): DOI: 10.3390/children9081106
Bulatova G, Kusnoto B, Grace V, et al. Assessment of automatic cephalometric landmark identification using artificial intelligence. Orthod Craniofac Res 2021;24 Suppl 2:37–42. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12542
Gregston MD, Kula T, Hardman P, et al. Comparison of conventional and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software: I. Hard tissue. Semin Orthod 2004;10(3):204–211. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2004.05.004
Houston WJ, Maher RE, McElroy D, et al. Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod 1986;8(3):149–151. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/8.3.149
Polat-Ozsoy O, Gokcelik A, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods. Eur J Orthod 2009;31(3):254–259. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn121
Krishnaraj R, Balasubramaniam MR, Shetty RS, et al. A comparison of conventional, digitized and digital methods of hard tissue cephalometric parameters. SRM University J Dent Sci 2010;1(1):68–74.
Bruntz LQ, Palomo JM, Baden S, et al. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130(3):340–348. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.029
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
Naini FB, Otasevic M, Vasir NS. A comparison of manual tracing, digitizing, and computer cephalometric analysis. Virtual J Orthod 2001;3(4):94–99.
Agarwal N, Bagga DK, Sharma P. A comparative study of cephalometric measurements with digital versus manual methods. J Ind Orthod Soc 2011;45(2):84–90. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10021-1014
Uysal T, Baysal A, Yagci A. Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses. Eur J Orthod 2009;31(5):523–528. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjp022
Celik E, Polat-Ozsoy O, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod 2009;31(3):241–246. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn105
Singh P, Davies TI. A comparison of cephalometric measurements: a picture archiving and communication system versus the hand-tracing method–a preliminary study. Eur J Orthod 2011;33(4):350–353. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq087
Lai EHH, Chen CSK, Chang ZC, et al. Cephalometric analysis using digital radiography acquired by a storage phosphor imaging system e a comparison of reading soft- and hard-copies. J Dent Sci 2007;2(2):65–67. DOI: 10.30086/JDS.200706.0003
