The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: A comparison of conventional and digital methods

S. F. AlBarakati, K. S. Kula, A. A. Ghoneima

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and reproducibility of angular and linear measurements of conventional and digital cephalometric methods. Methods: A total of 13 landmarks and 16 skeletal and dental parameters were defined and measured on pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 30 patients. The conventional and digital tracings and measurements were performed twice by the same examiner with a 6 week interval between measurements. The reliability within the method was determined using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r2). The reproducibility between methods was calculated by paired t-test. The level of statistical significance was set at p 2 (strong correlation) except maxillary length, which had a correlation of 0.82 for conventional tracing. Significant differences between the two methods were observed in most angular and linear measurements except for ANB angle (p= 0.5), angle of convexity (p = 0.09), anterior cranial base (p = 0.3) and the lower anterior facial height (p = 0.6). Conclusion: In general, both methods of conventional and digital cephalometric analysis are highly reliable. Although the reproducibility of the two methods showed some statistically significant differences, most differences were not clinically significant.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)11-17
Number of pages7
JournalDentomaxillofacial Radiology
Volume41
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cephalometry
Skull Base
Tooth

Keywords

  • Cephalometry
  • Radiography
  • Reproducibility of results

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements : A comparison of conventional and digital methods. / AlBarakati, S. F.; Kula, K. S.; Ghoneima, A. A.

In: Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol. 41, No. 1, 01.01.2012, p. 11-17.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{51f9577015784eadb76b27bbd2fcf1cf,
title = "The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: A comparison of conventional and digital methods",
abstract = "Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and reproducibility of angular and linear measurements of conventional and digital cephalometric methods. Methods: A total of 13 landmarks and 16 skeletal and dental parameters were defined and measured on pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 30 patients. The conventional and digital tracings and measurements were performed twice by the same examiner with a 6 week interval between measurements. The reliability within the method was determined using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r2). The reproducibility between methods was calculated by paired t-test. The level of statistical significance was set at p 2 (strong correlation) except maxillary length, which had a correlation of 0.82 for conventional tracing. Significant differences between the two methods were observed in most angular and linear measurements except for ANB angle (p= 0.5), angle of convexity (p = 0.09), anterior cranial base (p = 0.3) and the lower anterior facial height (p = 0.6). Conclusion: In general, both methods of conventional and digital cephalometric analysis are highly reliable. Although the reproducibility of the two methods showed some statistically significant differences, most differences were not clinically significant.",
keywords = "Cephalometry, Radiography, Reproducibility of results",
author = "AlBarakati, {S. F.} and Kula, {K. S.} and Ghoneima, {A. A.}",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1259/dmfr/37010910",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "11--17",
journal = "Dentomaxillofacial Radiology",
issn = "0250-832X",
publisher = "British Institute of Radiology",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements

T2 - A comparison of conventional and digital methods

AU - AlBarakati, S. F.

AU - Kula, K. S.

AU - Ghoneima, A. A.

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and reproducibility of angular and linear measurements of conventional and digital cephalometric methods. Methods: A total of 13 landmarks and 16 skeletal and dental parameters were defined and measured on pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 30 patients. The conventional and digital tracings and measurements were performed twice by the same examiner with a 6 week interval between measurements. The reliability within the method was determined using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r2). The reproducibility between methods was calculated by paired t-test. The level of statistical significance was set at p 2 (strong correlation) except maxillary length, which had a correlation of 0.82 for conventional tracing. Significant differences between the two methods were observed in most angular and linear measurements except for ANB angle (p= 0.5), angle of convexity (p = 0.09), anterior cranial base (p = 0.3) and the lower anterior facial height (p = 0.6). Conclusion: In general, both methods of conventional and digital cephalometric analysis are highly reliable. Although the reproducibility of the two methods showed some statistically significant differences, most differences were not clinically significant.

AB - Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and reproducibility of angular and linear measurements of conventional and digital cephalometric methods. Methods: A total of 13 landmarks and 16 skeletal and dental parameters were defined and measured on pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 30 patients. The conventional and digital tracings and measurements were performed twice by the same examiner with a 6 week interval between measurements. The reliability within the method was determined using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r2). The reproducibility between methods was calculated by paired t-test. The level of statistical significance was set at p 2 (strong correlation) except maxillary length, which had a correlation of 0.82 for conventional tracing. Significant differences between the two methods were observed in most angular and linear measurements except for ANB angle (p= 0.5), angle of convexity (p = 0.09), anterior cranial base (p = 0.3) and the lower anterior facial height (p = 0.6). Conclusion: In general, both methods of conventional and digital cephalometric analysis are highly reliable. Although the reproducibility of the two methods showed some statistically significant differences, most differences were not clinically significant.

KW - Cephalometry

KW - Radiography

KW - Reproducibility of results

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855293996&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855293996&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1259/dmfr/37010910

DO - 10.1259/dmfr/37010910

M3 - Article

C2 - 22184624

AN - SCOPUS:84855293996

VL - 41

SP - 11

EP - 17

JO - Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

JF - Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

SN - 0250-832X

IS - 1

ER -