Top

Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

Published in:

26-11-2023 | Fee Schedule for Physicians | ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Reproducibility of Computerized Cephalometric Analysis Software Compared with Conventional Manual Tracing for Analyzing Skeletal Stability After Orthognathic Surgery

Authors: Phu Hnin Thet, Boosana Kaboosaya

Published in: Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery | Issue 4/2023

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to compare the difference between analyzing skeletal stability after orthognathic surgery by lateral cephalogram measurement created from Dolphin software (version 11.95) compared with the manual technique.

Methods

Twenty-eight patients who underwent mandibular setback surgery (BSSRO) were randomly selected between 2015 and 2021. Serial lateral cephalograms were analyzed at four different time sets postoperatively, and a total of 112 cephalometric radiographs were obtained. Horizontal measurement (BX), vertical measurement (BY), and 3 angular measurements (SNB, ANB, and Gonial angle) were analyzed by manual tracing and Dolphin software by 2 examiners. The intraclass correlation coefficient determined the intra-rater reliability. Parameter differences between timelines were observed for skeletal stability, and mean values between methods were compared using the Student’s t-test.

Results

Both examiners were generally consistent in the repeated measurements (ICCs of the manual method ranged from 0.926 to 0.994, and the digital method ranged from 0.719 to 0.956). All variables represented skeletal stability at T0–T1, T0–T2, and T0–T3 showed no statistically significant differences between methods except ANB (T0–T1; p value = 0.009).

Conclusions

Computerized cephalometric analysis software is relatively reproducible for assessing skeletal changes after orthognathic surgery and can be used routinely in follow-up.

Hurst CA, Eppley BL, Havlik RJ, Sadove AM (2007) Surgical cephalometrics: applications and developments. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(6):92–104. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000282728.97278.a2CrossRef

Ongkosuwito EM, Katsaros C, van’t Hof MA, Bodegom JC, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM (2002) The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of analogue and digital methods. Eur J Orthod. 24(6):655–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/24.6.655CrossRefPubMed

Jaworski A, Smektała T, Królikowski M, Sporniak-Tutak K, Olszewski R (2016) How do landmark deviations affect angular measurements? The concept of individual cephalometric calibration. Dent Med Probl. 53:309–319. https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/62481CrossRef

Mahto R, Kharbanda O, Duggal R, Sardana H (2016) A comparison of cephalometric measurements obtained from two computerized cephalometric softwares with manual tracings. J Indian Orthod Soc 50:162–170. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-5742.186359CrossRef

Polat-Ozsoy O, Gokcelik A, Toygar Memikoğlu TU (2009) Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods. Eur J Orthod 31(3):254–259. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn121CrossRefPubMed

Santoro M, Jarjoura K, Cangialosi TJ (2006) Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129(3):345–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.010CrossRef

Chen CM, Hsu HJ, Hsu KJ, Tseng YC (2022) Clinical significance of postoperative skeletal relapse in the treatment of mandibular prognathism: receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. J Formos Med Assoc 121(12):2593–2600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2022.07.001CrossRefPubMed

Mulier D, Gaitán Romero L, Führer A, Martin C, Shujaat S, Shaheen E, Politis C, Jacobs R (2021) Long-term dental stability after orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 43(1):104–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjaa022CrossRefPubMed

Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun T (2007) An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod 29(1):105–108. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjl065CrossRefPubMed

10.

Uysal T, Baysal A, Yagci A (2009) Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses. Eur J Orthod 31(5):523–528. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp022CrossRefPubMed

11.

Paixão MB, Sobral MC, Vogel CJ, Araujo TM (2010) Comparative study between manual and digital cephalometric tracing using dolphin imaging software with lateral radiographs. Dental Press J Orthod. 15:123–130. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512010000600016CrossRef

12.

Albarakati S, Kula K, Ghoneima A (2012) The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41(1):11–17. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/37010910CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Ahmad S (2016) Reliability and accuracy of dolphin software compared with conventional method for cephalometric evaluation. J Clin Med Res 1:11–16

14.

de Abreu DP, Freitas KMS, Nomura S, Valarelli FP, Cançado RH (2016) Comparison among manual and computerized cephalometrics using the softwares dolphin imaging and dentofacial planner. Dent Oral Craniofacial Res 2(6):1–5. https://doi.org/10.15761/DOCR.1000186CrossRef

15.

Joss CU, Thüer UW (2008) Stability of hard tissue profile after mandibular setback in sagittal split osteotomies: a longitudinal and long-term follow-up study. Eur J Orthod 30(4):352–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn008CrossRefPubMed

16.

Perinetti G (2018) StaTips part IV: selection, interpretation and reporting of the intraclass correlation coefficient. South Eur J Orthod Dentofac Res 5:3–5. https://doi.org/10.5937/sejodr5-17434CrossRef

17.

Donatsky O, Bjørn-Jørgensen J, Holmqvist-Larsen M, Hillerup S (1997) Computerized cephalometric evaluation of orthognathic surgical precision and stability in relation to maxillary superior repositioning combined with mandibular advancement or setback. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55:1071–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(97)90283-4CrossRefPubMed

18.

Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S (1996) Digital imaging of cephalometric radiography, part 1: advantages and limitations of digital imaging. Angle Orthod 66(1):37–42PubMed

19.

Power G, Breckon J, Sherriff M, McDonald F (2005) Dolphin imaging software: an analysis of the accuracy of cephalometric digitization and orthognathic prediction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34(6):619–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2005.04.003CrossRefPubMed

20.

Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF, Chen KC (2000) Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod 70(5):387–392PubMed

21.

Gregston MD, Kula TJ, Hardman PK, Glaros AG, Kula KS (2004) A comparison of conventional and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software: I. Hard tissue. Semin Orthod 10:204–211. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2004.05.004CrossRef

22.

Hagemann K, Vollmer D, Niegel T, Ehmer U, Reuter I (2000) Prospective study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional and digital lateral headfilms. J Orofac Orthop 61(2):91–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01300351CrossRefPubMed

23.

Wang J, Langer S (1997) A brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems. J Digit Imaging 10(4):158–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03168838CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Macrì V, Wenzel A (1993) Reliability of landmark recording on film and digital lateral cephalograms. Eur J Orthod 15(2):137–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/15.2.137CrossRefPubMed

25.

Nouri M, Hamidiaval S, Akbarzadeh Baghban A, Basafa M, Fahim M (2015) Efficacy of a newly designed cephalometric analysis software for McNamara analysis in comparison with dolphin software. J Dent (Tehran) 12(1):60–69PubMed

Title: Reproducibility of Computerized Cephalometric Analysis Software Compared with Conventional Manual Tracing for Analyzing Skeletal Stability After Orthognathic Surgery
Authors: Phu Hnin Thet
Boosana Kaboosaya
Publication date: 26-11-2023
Publisher: Springer India
Keyword: Fee Schedule for Physicians
Published in: Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery / Issue 4/2023
Print ISSN: 0972-8279
Electronic ISSN: 0974-942X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-023-02071-7

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Reproducibility of Computerized Cephalometric Analysis Software Compared with Conventional Manual Tracing for Analyzing Skeletal Stability After Orthognathic Surgery

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2023

Things We Lost in the Fire: A Conversation “A Tale of Two Extremities”

Single-Puncture Versus Double-Puncture Technique Arthrocentesis in the Treatment of Internal Derangement of TM Joint—A Comparative Clinical Study

Characteristics and Risk Factors for the Fracture of One-Piece Implants

Stress Propagation in the Craniofacial Skeleton on Frontal Impact—A Virtual Simulation Study

Patient Satisfaction Following Orthognathic Surgery: A Systematic Review

The Stability of Anterior Open Bite Closure After Bimaxillary Osteotomy