PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Revista Argentina de Radiología / Argentinian Journal of Radiology 2021; 85(02): 033-040
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721340
Artículo Original

Comparación entre trazados cefalométricos manual y digital en radiografías laterales del cráneo

Comparison between Manual and Digital Cephalometric Tracing in Side Radiographies of the Skull
Eduardo Calle-Velezmoro 
1   Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad de San Martín de Porres (USMP), Lima, Perú
,
Jesica Calle-Morocho
2   Centro de Imágenes Dentales, Cañar, Ecuador
,
Rafael Morales-Vadillo
3   Instituto de Investigación de la Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad de San Martín de Porres (USMP), Lima, Perú
,
Janet-Ofelia Guevara-Canales
1   Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad de San Martín de Porres (USMP), Lima, Perú
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Resumen

Objetivo Evaluar la diferencia del trazado cefalométrico manual con el digital en radiografías laterales de cráneo.

Materiales y métodos Inicialmente se realizó un piloto para calibrar al investigador principal, en donde se analizaron 10 radiografías pertenecientes a cinco pacientes del Servicio de Radiología del Centro Odontológico de nuestra institución para evaluar la concordancia entre los dos evaluadores y establecer el tamaño de la muestra. Finalmente, se analizaron 78 radiografías cefalométricas de 39 pacientes, en las que se realizó el trazado cefalométrico de Steiner manual y digital. Esas radiografías se analizaron en una escala 1:1 y posteriormente se evaluó la diferencia de las mediciones mediante el análisis univariado, se determinó en mediana e intervalo intercuartil por separado. En el análisis bivariado, se aplicó la prueba de signo de rangos de Wilcoxon y muestras pareadas para determinar la diferencia de las mediciones cefalométricas de Steiner entre el tipo del análisis cefalométrico. El nivel de significancia se fijó en p < 0,05 y confiabilidad al 95%, respectivamente.

Resultados No hubo diferencia significativa en la mayoría de las mediciones hechas de manera manual y digital, siendo el ángulo interincisal la única medición angular en la cual hubo diferencia significativa al obtener un resultado de p = 0,002. Mientras tanto, en las mediciones lineales, la única medición en la que hubo diferencia significativa fue en el segmento incisivo inferior – NB con p = 0,005.

Conclusión No se encuentran diferencias significativas entre el trazado cefalométrico manual y el digital. No obstante, es importante tener en cuenta que la muestra o población evaluada es reducida para definir conclusiones.

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the difference of the manual cephalometric tracing with the digital tracing on lateral cranial radiographs.

Materials and Methods Initially, a pilot study was carried out to calibrate the principal investigator, where 10 radiographs belonging to 5 patients of the Radiology Service of the Dental Center, were analyzed to evaluate the intraclass concordance between the two evaluators. To establish the size of the sample, finally, 78 cephalometric radiographs of 39 patients were analyzed, in which the manual and digital Steiner cephalometric tracing was performed. These radiographs were analyzed on a 1: 1 scale and then the difference of the measurements was evaluated using the univariate analysis, which was determined in the median and interquartile range, separately. In the bivariate analysis, the Wilcoxon rank sign test and paired samples were applied to determine the difference of Steiner's cephalometric measurements between the cephalometric analysis type. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 and 95% reliability, respectively.

Results There was no significant difference in most of the measurements made manually and digitally. The interincisal angle the only angular measurement in which there was a significant difference when obtaining a result of p = 0.002, while, in the linear measurements, the only measurement in which there was significant difference was in the lower incisor segment - NB with p = 0.005.

Conclusion There is no significant difference between manual and digital cephalometric tracing, nevertheless it is important to keep in mind that the sample or population evaluated is reduced to define conclusions.

Palabras clave

Cefalometría - Radiografía Dental Digital - Radiografía Dental

Keywords

Cephalometry - Dental Digital Radiography - Dental Radiography

Responsabilidades éticas

Protección de personas y animales. Los autores declaran que para esta investigación no se han realizado experimentos en seres humanos ni en animales.


Confidencialidad de los datos

Los autores declaran que han seguido los protocolos de su centro de trabajo sobre la publicación de datos de pacientes.


Derecho a la privacidad y consentimiento informado

Los autores declaran que en este artículo no aparecen datos de pacientes.


Aprobación ética: Informe N° 036-2016-INVE-FO-USMP.


Agradecimientos

Los autores agradecen al Instituto de Diagnóstico Maxilofacial de Lima, Perú, por brindar las herramientas digitales para el análisis y a la Dra. Karina Pardo por la asesoría.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 05. Juli 2019

Angenommen: 08. September 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
14. Mai 2021

© 2021. Asociación Civil Sociedad Argentina de Radiología and Federacion Argentina de Asociaciones de Radiología, Diagnóstico por Imágenes y Terapia Radiante. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Bibliografía

  • 1 Broadbent BH. A new X-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod. 1981; 51 (02) 93-114
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Farooq MU, Khan MA, Imran S, Sameera A, Qureshi A, Ahmed SA. et al. Assessing the Reliability of Digitalized Cephalometric Analysis in Comparison with Manual Cephalometric Analysis. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; 10 (10) ZC20-ZC23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tikku T, Khanna R, Maurya RP, Srivastava K, Bhushan R. 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 (01) 35-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Prabhakar R, Rajakumar P, Karthikeyan MK, Saravanan R, Vikram NR, Reddy A. A hard tissue cephalometric comparative study between hand tracing and computerized tracing. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2014; 6 (05, Suppl 1): S101-S106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lalakiya HBaswaraj, Agrawal C, Patel U, Ramani A, Patel V, Chaudhary S. The Comparison of Computer Aided Digital Cephalometric Radiograph with Manual Tracing. Int J Adv Res (Indore). 2016; 4 (01) 621-626
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Esteva-Segura F, Sanchez-Valverde A, Melendez-Ocampo A, Cedillo-Angelares P. Estudio comparativo entre cefalometría digital y manual con radiografías digitales. Rev Mex Ortodoncia. 2014; 2 (02) 95-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Steiner C. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod. 1953; 39 (10) 729-755
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Steiner C. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod. 1959; 29: 8-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Albarakati SF, Kula KS, Ghoneima AA. The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41 (01) 11-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Murali R, Sukumai M, Faisal T. Rajalingam. Comparative Study of Manual Cephalometric Tracing in Digital Lateral Cephalogram for Accuracy and Reliability of Landmarks. Indian J Multidiscip Denti. 2011; 1 (03) 126-134
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Celik E, Polat-Ozsoy O, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2009; 31 (03) 241-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun T. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod. 2007; 29 (01) 105-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lindner C, Wang CW, Huang CT, Li CH, Chang SW, Cootes TF. Fully Automatic System for Accurate Localisation and Analysis of Cephalometric Landmarks in Lateral Cephalograms. Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 33581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sudhir N, Chittaranjan B, Kumar BA, Taruna M, Kumar MP, Reddy MR. Digital Cephalometric Tracings by PRO-CEPH V3 Software for Comparative Analyses of Vertical Dimension in Edentulous Patients. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015; 9 (05) ZC01-ZC05
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Calle-Morocho J, Morales-Vadillo R, Guevara-Canales J, Alva-Cuneo C. A comparative study of digital lateral radiography and virtual cone-beam computed assisted cephalogram in cephalometric measurements. J Oral Res. 2018; 7 (08) 308-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sangroula P, Sardana HK, Kharbanda OP, Duggal R. Comparison of reliability and validity of posteroanterior cephalometric measurements obtained from AutoCEPH© and dolphin® cephalometric software programs with manual tracing. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2018; 52 (02) 106-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bonilla MM, Barrera JP, Arroyave ÁP, Díaz ME. Comparación de la reproducibilidad en las mediciones angulares entre trazado manual y computarizado. Rev Fac Odontol Univ Antioq. 2014; 25 (02) 299-312
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Aksoy S, Kelahmet U, Hincal E, Oz U, Orhan K. Comparison of linear and angular measurements in CBCT scans using 2D and 3D rendering software. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip. 2016; 30 (04) 777-784
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zamora N, Llamas JM, Cibrián R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. Cephalometric measurements from 3D reconstructed images compared with conventional 2D images. Angle Orthod. 2011; 81 (05) 856-864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Naoumova J, Lindman R. A comparison of manual traced images and corresponding scanned radiographs digitally traced. Eur J Orthod. 2009; 31 (03) 247-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yao JCC, Chang HF. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74 (02) 155-161
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kumar V, Ludlow J, Soares Cevidanes LH, Mol A. In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78 (05) 873-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar