SavedAdd your journal

Journals / European Annals of Dental Sciences / 2020 / Volume: 47 Issue: 1-3

Repeatability of the Points Used in Posteroanterior Radiography Measurements

POSTEROANTERİOR RADYOGRAFİ ÖLÇÜMLERİNDE KULLANILAN NOKTALARIN TEKRARLANABİLİRLİĞİ

Bartu Altuğ(ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ)
Elif Demirel(ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ)
Prof. Dr. Erhan Özdiler(ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ)
Pages
75–80
Publication Date
2020-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results: According to the results of the study, skeletal points are more reliable than dental points.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the repeatability of anatomical and dental points used in posteroanterior radiographs with a computer program.
📊
Key Findings & Data:X-rays were measured with Dolphin 3D cephalometric analysis program at Ankara University Faculty of Dentistry, and the repeatability of the 22 points de-termined on the films was tested by 3 researchers.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results: According to the results of the study, skeletal points are more reliable than dental points.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:posteroanterior radyografi · oklüzal düzlem · sefalometrik analiz

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the repeatability of anatomical and dental points used in posteroanterior radiographs with a computer program. Materials and method: X-rays used in the study were taken from the Kirikkale University, Department of Dentistry. X-rays were measured with Dolphin 3D cephalometric analysis program at Ankara University Faculty of Dentistry, and the repeatability of the 22 points de-termined on the films was tested by 3 researchers. Results: According to the results of the study, skeletal points are more reliable than dental points. The least reliable skeletal point is the zygomatico-frontal suture, while the mandibu-lar canine is the most reliable dental point. Conclusion: In the study, two planes were also evaluated and unexpectedly, it is more reli-able in the occlusal plane compared to the midsagittal plane.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, posteroanterior radyografilerde kullanılan anatomik ve dişsel noktaların tekrarlanabilirliğini bilgisayar programı ile belirlemektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmada kullanılan röntgenler Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Anabilim dalından alınmıştır. Röntgenler Ankara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Anabilimdalında Dolphin 3D sefalometrik analiz programı ile ölçülmüştür filmlerde belirlenen 22 nokta 3 araştırmacı tarafından tekrarlanabilirliği test edilmiştir. Bulgular: Çalışmanın sonucuna göre iskeletsel noktalar dişsel noktalara göre daha güvenilirdir. En az güvenilir iskeletsel nokta zigomatiko-frontal sutur iken mandibular kanin en güvenilir dental noktadır. Sonuç: Çalışmada ayrıca iki düzlem değerlendirilmiş ve beklenmedik şekilde okluzal düzlem midsagittal düzleme göre daha güvenilir bulunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Altuğ, B., Demirel, E., Özdiler, P. D. E. (2020). Repeatability of the Points Used in Posteroanterior Radiography Measurements. European Annals of Dental Sciences, Volume: 47 Issue: 1-3, 75–80. https://ajindex.com/articles/1483245

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (21)

  1. Ricketts RM, Bench R, Hilgers J, Schulhof R. An overview of computerized cephalometrics. Am J Orthod 1972; 61: 1–28
  2. Grummons DC, Kappeyne van de Coppello MA. Frontal asymmetry analysis. J Clin Orthod 1987; 21: 448–465
  3. SNODELL SF, NANDA RS, CURRIER GF. A longitudinal cephalometric study of transverse and vertical craniofacial growth. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,1993; 104, 471-483
  4. ATHANASIOU AE. Orthodontic cephalometry. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1997; 111, 458-458
  5. Grayson BH, McCarthy JG, Bookstein F. Analysis of craniofacial asymmetry by multiplane cephalometry. Am J Orthod 1983; 84: 217-224
  6. EL-MANGOURY NH, SHAHEEN SI, MOSTAFA YA. Landmark identification in computerized posteroanterior cephalometrics. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1987; 91, 57-61.
  7. GHAFARI J, CATER PE, SHOFER FS. Effect of film-object distance on posteroanterior cephalometric measurements: suggestions for standardized cephalometric methods. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1995; 108, 30-37
  8. MAJOR PW, JOHNSON DE, HESSE KL, GLOVER KE. Landmark identification error in posterior anterior cephalometrics. The Angle Orthodontist, 1994; 64, 447-454
  9. ATHANASIOU A, MIETHKE R, VAN DER MEIJ A. Random errors in localization of landmarks in postero-anterior cephalograms. Journal of Orthodontics, 1999; 26, 273-284
  10. LEONARDI R, ANNUNZIATA A, CALTABIANO M. Landmark Identification Error in Posteroanterior Cephalometric Radiography: A Systematic Review. The Angle Orthodontist, 2008; 78, 761-765
  11. YOON Y-J, KIM D-H, YU P-S, KIM H-J, CHOI E-H, KIM K-W. Effect of head rotation on posteroanterior cephalometric radiographs. The Angle orthodontist, 2002; 72, 36-42
  12. VAN VLIJMEN O, BERGÉ S, BRONKHORST E, SWENNEN G, KATSAROS C, KUIJPERS-JAGTMAN A. A comparison of frontal radiographs obtained from cone beam CT scans and conventional frontal radiographs of human skulls. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2009; 38, 773-778.
  13. RICKETTS R.M. Perspectives on the clinical application of cephalometrics. Angle Orthod 1981; 51: 115-150
  14. RUDOLPH D.J., SINCLAIR P.M., COGGINS J.M. Automatic computerized radiographic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113: 173-179
  15. R Leonardia; A Annunziatab; M Caltabianoc. Landmark Identification Error in Posteroanterior Cephalometric Radiography. Angle Orthodontist 2008; 78, No 4
  16. GRAVELY J.F., BENZIES R.M. The clinical significance of tracing error in cephalometry. Br J Orthod 1974; 1: 95-101.
  17. AHLQVIST J., ELIASSON S., WELANDER U. The effect of projection errors on cephalometric length measurements. Eur J Orthod 1986; 8: 141-148.
  18. BAUMRIND S., FRANTZ R.C. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971; 60: 111-127.
  19. FORSYTH D.B., SHAW W.C., RICHMOND S., ROBERTS C.J. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs, part 2: image quality. Angle Orthod, 1996; 66: 43-50
  20. FORSYTH D.B., SHAW W.C., RICHMOND S. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiography, part 1: Advantages and limitations of digital imaging. Angle Orthod, 1996; 66: 37-42
  21. FORSYTH D.B., SHAW W.C., RICHMOND S., ROBERTS C.J. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs, part 2: image quality. Angle Orthod, 1996; 66: 43-50