Comparison of Cephalometric Measurements Between Hand Tracing and Digital Tracing Based on Android OneCeph
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18196/di.v12i2.17566Keywords:
orthodontics, cephalometry, hand tracing, digital tracing, OneCephAbstract
Lateral cephalometric radiographic examination is one of the supporting examinations in orthodontic treatment. Cephalometric measurements can be performed using hand tracing (manual) and digital methods. The digital method is widely preferred today due to its faster measurement, easy and safe storage, and can be sent anywhere easily. One of the applications that can be utilized for digital analysis is OneCeph. This application’s accuracy for cephalometric analysis, therefore, needs to be evaluated. This study aims to determine the differences in cephalometric measurements using the Ricketts method between hand tracing and digital tracing based on the OneCeph Android application. This analytic observational study utilized a cross-sectional design conducted at the Dental Hospital of UMY. The samples were 30 lateral cephalometric radiographs of good quality and had film negatives and digital files. The Ricketts method analysis was carried out manually and digitally utilizing the OneCeph application. The Shapiro Wilk test results showed that the data were normally distributed for all components except for the convexity of point A, lower incisor to A Pog line, and e-line. Comparative test results with independent sample t-test and Mann-Whitney test demonstrated no significant difference in all components (p>0.05), except for the variable lower incisor to A Pog line (p<0.05). The multivariate analysis results also showed p>0.05, demonstrating no significant difference for all components (p>0.05). The OneCeph application is no different from the gold standard (hand tracing/manual method) that has been used so far, so it can be an alternative for cephalometric tracing.References
Kumar P, Londhe SM, Kotwal A, Mitra R. Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in schoolchildren – An epidemiological study. Medical Journal Armed Forces India [Internet]. 2013 Oct;69(4):369–74. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2012.02.003
Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kesehatan. Departemen Kesehatan RI. Laporan hasil riset kesehatan dasar (Riskesdas) Nasional 2013. Jakarta.2013:111−112
Farani W, Abdillah MI. Prevalensi Maloklusi Anak Usia 9-11 Tahun di SD IT Insan Utama Yogyakarta. Insisiva Dental Journal: Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Insisiva [Internet]. 2021 May 31;10(1):26–31. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.18196/di.v10i1.7534
Goyal S. Textbook of Orthodontics. Departemen. (Goyal Sonia, ed.). CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt Ltd; 2017:510-532.
Kula K, Ghoneima AT, Parks E, Allam E, Lagravère M, Ling CP, et al. Cephalometry in Orthodontics 2D and 3D (K. Kula & A. Ghoneima (eds.)). quintessence publishing, 2018:1-6
Brahmanta A. Gambaran Sefalometri Skeletal, Dental Dan Jaringan Lunak. (S. Revianti, ed.). Kartika Mulya; 2017,9.
Maruapey AM, Dharmautama M, Prostodonsia P, Prostodonsia B. (2013). Penggunaan Analisis Sefalometri dalam Bidang Prostodonsi. Makassar Dental Journal [Internet].2013;2(2):1-6. https://doi.org/10.35856/MDJ.V2I2.119
Ardianysah MS, Sri Pudyani P, Suparwitri S. Perubahan Profil Wajah Sesudah Perawatan Ortodontik Cekat. Insisiva Dental Journal: Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Insisiva [Internet]. 2018;7(1). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.18196/di.7192
Mitra R, Chauhan A, Sardana S, Londhe S, Jayan B, Maurya R. Determination of the comparative accuracy of manual, semi-digital, and fully digital cephalometric tracing methods in orthodontics. Journal of Dentistry Defence Section [Internet]. 2020;14(2):52. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jodd.jodd_24_20
Sayar G, Kilinc DD. Manual tracing versus smartphone application (app) tracing: a comparative study. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica [Internet]. 2017 Aug 9;75(8):588–94. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2017.1364420
Gayatri G, Harsanti A, Zenab Y, Sunaryo IR. Steiner cephalometric analysis discrepancies between conventional and digital methods using Cephninja® application software. Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry [Internet]. 2016 Nov 30;28(3). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.24198/pjd.vol28no3.13671
Juma A, Tattan M, Duarte C. The alternative use of a nonconventional orthopantomograms analysis technique for facial skeletal assessment. International Journal of Orofacial Research [Internet]. 2018;3(2):26-31.
Anuar Shindy R, Piona Sahelangi O. Gambaran Hasil Analisis Sefalometri Pada Pasien Ras Deutro Melayu Usia 8-12 Tahun Menggunakan Analisis Ricketts. Jurnal Kedokteran Gigi Terpadu [Internet]. 2020 Aug 6;2(1). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.25105/jkgt.v2i1.7516
Bae E, Kwon H, Kwon O. Changes in longitudinal craniofacial growth in subjects with normal occlusions using the Ricketts analysis. The Korean Journal of Orthodontics [Internet]. 2014;44(2):77. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.2.77
Turley PK. Evolution of esthetic considerations in orthodontics. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics [Internet]. 2015 Sep;148(3):374–9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.06.010
Zamrik OM, İşeri H. The reliability and reproducibility of an Android cephalometric smartphone application in comparison with the conventional method. The Angle Orthodontist [Internet]. 2020 Nov 25;91(2):236–42. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/042320-345.1
Faliya N, Doshi J, Gandhi P, Mathakiya L, Bind P. Comparing the Efficacy between OneCeph digital software versus Manual Cephalometric Tracing. J Adv Heal Sci Res. Jan. 2021;2(1).
Shrestha R, Kandel S. A Comparative Study on Use of Manual Versus Digital Method using Mobile Application for Cephalometric Measurements. Orthodontic Journal of Nepal [Internet]. 2020 Sep 4;10(1):11–6. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/ojn.v10i1.30997
Mohan A, Sivakumar A, Nalabothu P. Evaluation of accuracy and reliability of OneCeph digital cephalometric analysis in comparison with manual cephalometric analysis—a cross-sectional study. BDJ Open [Internet]. 2021 Jun 17;7(1). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41405-021-00077-2
Goutham, S N, HK V, Ramegowda S, AM S. Handy Gadget for Cephalometric Analysis: A Systematic Review [Internet]. Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society. 2021 Jan 26;55(1):64-71.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
License
Insisiva Dental Journal : Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Insisiva (IDJ) is licensed under an Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Copyright
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
