Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Search Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 109
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Year : 2010  |  Volume : 22  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 9-12

Comparison of Cephalometric Measurements Obtained with Conventional and Digital Methods and their Reproducibility

1 Department of Orthodontics, Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, India
2 Department of Pedodontics, Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics, Government Dental College, Rohtak, Haryana, India
4 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Anshu Kalra
Department of Orthodontics, Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh-491441
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10011-1060

Rights and Permissions

Aims and objectives: The purpose of the study was to compare the intraobserver reproducibility of cephalometric measurements obtained with digital cephalograms traced with software and equivalent hand-traced conventional cephalograms. Further, the cephalometric measurements obtained with both methods were compared to know any significant differences. Materials and methods: The sample consisted of pretreatment digital and conventional cephalograms of 40 patients (20 males and 20 females). Eleven cephalometric landmarks were identified and 10 measurements calculated by one operator, both manually and with digital tracing software. Intraobserver reliability was assessed for both methods by duplicating the tracings at two weeks interval and using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Further paired "t" test was used to compare the conventional and digital methods. Results: The analysis of error (correlation coefficient) on both methods showed a high correlation of repeated measures. Results indicate that the reliability of repeated measurements appears to be slightly better with conventional radiographs. In the comparison between two methods, statistically significant differences (p < 0.005) were detected for S of the 10 measurements evaluated (Wits. Sn-GoGn, PP-GoGn, U1-L1, L1-GoGn). However, three of these statistically significant results were highly significant (p < 0-001) of Wits, U1-L1, L1-GoGn. Conclusion: Intraobserver reproducibility was found to be better with conventional cephalometric tracings than with monitor displayed digital image tracings. The differences, however, were clinically insignificant. Therefore, computerized cephalometric measurement using direct digital imaging is inherently preferable for its user-friendly and time saving characteristics.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded156    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal