A comparison of conventional and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software

I. Hard tissue

Mark D. Gregston, Theodore Kula, Patrick Hardman, Alan Glaros, Katherine Kula

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Various modes of digital cephalometric imaging and cephalometric analysis software are commercially available. This study compared the reliability and dispersion of 10 angular and 5 linear cephalometric parameters (primarily hard tissue) of conventional images, scanned conventional images, and storage phosphor images (DenOptix) measured by using manual tracings and 3 software programs (Dolphin Imaging v. 6.7, Vistadent v. 7.33, and Vistadent v. 8.01). The reliability of each method was considered clinically acceptable. Although there were statistically significant differences in the means of numerous parameters between manual tracing and other modes of images and analyses, the differences did not appear to be clinically meaningful.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)204-211
Number of pages8
JournalSeminars in Orthodontics
Volume10
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cephalometry
Software
Dolphins

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

A comparison of conventional and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software : I. Hard tissue. / Gregston, Mark D.; Kula, Theodore; Hardman, Patrick; Glaros, Alan; Kula, Katherine.

In: Seminars in Orthodontics, Vol. 10, No. 3, 09.2004, p. 204-211.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gregston, Mark D. ; Kula, Theodore ; Hardman, Patrick ; Glaros, Alan ; Kula, Katherine. / A comparison of conventional and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software : I. Hard tissue. In: Seminars in Orthodontics. 2004 ; Vol. 10, No. 3. pp. 204-211.
@article{e3d52117dd5549d999bdd07d5a1ddd8a,
title = "A comparison of conventional and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software: I. Hard tissue",
abstract = "Various modes of digital cephalometric imaging and cephalometric analysis software are commercially available. This study compared the reliability and dispersion of 10 angular and 5 linear cephalometric parameters (primarily hard tissue) of conventional images, scanned conventional images, and storage phosphor images (DenOptix) measured by using manual tracings and 3 software programs (Dolphin Imaging v. 6.7, Vistadent v. 7.33, and Vistadent v. 8.01). The reliability of each method was considered clinically acceptable. Although there were statistically significant differences in the means of numerous parameters between manual tracing and other modes of images and analyses, the differences did not appear to be clinically meaningful.",
author = "Gregston, {Mark D.} and Theodore Kula and Patrick Hardman and Alan Glaros and Katherine Kula",
year = "2004",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1053/j.sodo.2004.05.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "204--211",
journal = "Seminars in Orthodontics",
issn = "1073-8746",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of conventional and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software

T2 - I. Hard tissue

AU - Gregston, Mark D.

AU - Kula, Theodore

AU - Hardman, Patrick

AU - Glaros, Alan

AU - Kula, Katherine

PY - 2004/9

Y1 - 2004/9

N2 - Various modes of digital cephalometric imaging and cephalometric analysis software are commercially available. This study compared the reliability and dispersion of 10 angular and 5 linear cephalometric parameters (primarily hard tissue) of conventional images, scanned conventional images, and storage phosphor images (DenOptix) measured by using manual tracings and 3 software programs (Dolphin Imaging v. 6.7, Vistadent v. 7.33, and Vistadent v. 8.01). The reliability of each method was considered clinically acceptable. Although there were statistically significant differences in the means of numerous parameters between manual tracing and other modes of images and analyses, the differences did not appear to be clinically meaningful.

AB - Various modes of digital cephalometric imaging and cephalometric analysis software are commercially available. This study compared the reliability and dispersion of 10 angular and 5 linear cephalometric parameters (primarily hard tissue) of conventional images, scanned conventional images, and storage phosphor images (DenOptix) measured by using manual tracings and 3 software programs (Dolphin Imaging v. 6.7, Vistadent v. 7.33, and Vistadent v. 8.01). The reliability of each method was considered clinically acceptable. Although there were statistically significant differences in the means of numerous parameters between manual tracing and other modes of images and analyses, the differences did not appear to be clinically meaningful.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=11144281350&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=11144281350&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1053/j.sodo.2004.05.004

DO - 10.1053/j.sodo.2004.05.004

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 204

EP - 211

JO - Seminars in Orthodontics

JF - Seminars in Orthodontics

SN - 1073-8746

IS - 3

ER -