KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Orthodontics / 2016 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 4

Reliability Assessment of Orthodontic Apps for Cephalometrics

Sertaç AKSAKALLI
Hilal YILANCI
ERHAN GÖRÜKMEZ
Sabri İlhan RAMOĞLU
Sayfa
98–102
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Both apps gave better results for angular measurements than linear ones.Conclusion: These findings indicate that, although they are user-friendly, orthodontic apps for cephalometrics are not equal with Dolphin software now and need to be developed to be more reliable for most of the measurements

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of cephalometric measurements using iPad apps called CephNinja and SmartCeph Pro.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Twenty-one landmarks and 16 measurements were performed in each program.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Both apps gave better results for angular measurements than linear ones.Conclusion: These findings indicate that, although they are user-friendly, orthodontic apps for cephalometrics are not equal with Dolphin software now and need to be developed to be more reliable for most of the measurements
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of cephalometric measurements using iPad apps called CephNinja and SmartCeph Pro. The measurements were compared with the measurements obtained using Dolphin Imaging computer software. Methods: Twenty digital cephalometric radiographs were randomly selected from the archives and traced using the CephNinja app, SmartCeph Pro app, and Dolphin Imaging software. Twenty-one landmarks and 16 measurements were performed in each program. The statistical analysis was conducted using the Bland-Altman analysis at a significance level of 0.05. Results: For the CephNinja app, there were seven measurements that were in accordance with Dolphin Imaging software. For the SmartCeph Pro app, six measurements were in accordance with Dolphin software. Both apps gave better results for angular measurements than linear ones.Conclusion: These findings indicate that, although they are user-friendly, orthodontic apps for cephalometrics are not equal with Dolphin software now and need to be developed to be more reliable for most of the measurements

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

AKSAKALLI, S., YILANCI, H., GÖRÜKMEZ, E., RAMOĞLU, S. İ. (2016). Reliability Assessment of Orthodontic Apps for Cephalometrics. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 4, 98–102. https://ajindex.com/articles/375028

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Naslund EB, Kruger M, Petersson A, Hansen K. Analysis of low-dose digital lateral cephalometric radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998
  2. [CrossRef] 2. Kızıldağ Ö, Toroğlu MS, Kayalıoğlu M, Uzel İ. Kısa dönemli büyüme tahmininde bilgisayar programının güvenirliğinin değerlendirilmesi. Turkish J Orthod 2006
  3. [CrossRef] 3. Wallace S, Clark M, White J. ‘It’s on my iPhone’: attitudes to the use of mobile computing devices in medical education, a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open 2012
  4. [CrossRef] 4. Singh P. Orthodontic apps for smartphones. J Orthod 2013
  5. [CrossRef] 5. Keser Eİ, Kocadereli İ. Geçmişten günümüze ortodontide kraniyofasiyal görüntüleme. Turkish J Orthod 2004
  6. [CrossRef] 6. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF, Chen KC. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod 2000
  7. Celik E, Polat-Ozsoy O, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod 2009
  8. [CrossRef] 8. Nouri M, Hamidiaval S, Akbarzadeh Baghban A, Basafa M, Fahim M. Efficacy of a newly designed cephalometric analysis software for mcnamara analysis in comparison with dolphin software. J Dent (Tehran) 2015
  9. Prabhakar R, Rajakumar P, Karthikeyan MK, Saravanan R, Vikram NR, Reddy A. A hard tissue cephalometric comparative study between hand tracing and computerized tracing. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2014
  10. [CrossRef] 10. Arponen H, Elf H, Evalahti M, Waltimo-Siren J. Reliability of cranial base measurements on lateral skull radiographs. Orthod Craniofac Res 2008
  11. [CrossRef] 11. Gliddon MJ, Xia JJ, Gateno J, Wong HT, Lasky RE, Teichgraeber JF, et al. The accuracy of cephalometric tracing superimposition. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006
  12. [CrossRef] 12. Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983
  13. [CrossRef] 13. Sommer T, Ciesielski R, Erbersdobler J, Orthuber W, Fischer-Brandies H. Precision of cephalometric analysis via fully and semiautomatic evaluation of digital lateral cephalographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009
  14. [CrossRef] 14. Liu JK, Chen YT, Cheng KS. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000
  15. [CrossRef] 15. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yao JC, Chang HF. The effects of differences in landmark identificat