Accuracy and reliability of Keynote for tracing and analyzing cephalometric radiographs.

Ali K Hamad, Ferdinand M Machibya, Matilda M Mlangwa, David N Ngassapa
{"title":"Accuracy and reliability of Keynote for tracing and analyzing cephalometric radiographs.","authors":"Ali K Hamad, Ferdinand M Machibya, Matilda M Mlangwa, David N Ngassapa","doi":"10.2319/101724-864.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the reliability and accuracy of Keynote for tracing and analyzing cephalograms in comparison to Quick Ceph Studio.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study, which utilized the lateral cephalometric digital images (radiographs) from 49 patients. The study site was the Dental Radiology unit in the School of Dentistry of the Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS), in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Cephalograms were imported to Quick Ceph Studio and then to Keynote for analysis. Minimum, maximum, mean, standard deviation, and mean difference were used to describe the data. Agreement between the two techniques was assessed by the Bland-Altman plot, linear regression, and interexaminer reliability tests. A level of significance was considered at P < .05, and a 95% CI was estimated for the outcomes in the study groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of the mean values obtained from Quick Ceph were greater (P < .05) than those obtained from Keynote. According to Bland-Altman plots, all measurements were within the limit of agreement except for only five linear variables. The interexaminer reliability test showed no agreement between the two instruments for all linear parameters except for the LAFH: TAFH, whereas all angular measurements revealed good to excellent agreement (ICC: 0.75 to 0.97) between the methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The measurements obtained with the Keynote software were found to be clinically reliable since the limits did not exceed the maximum acceptable difference between the methods. The two software instruments were considered to be in agreement and can be used interchangeably.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/101724-864.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the reliability and accuracy of Keynote for tracing and analyzing cephalograms in comparison to Quick Ceph Studio.

Materials and methods: This was a cross-sectional study, which utilized the lateral cephalometric digital images (radiographs) from 49 patients. The study site was the Dental Radiology unit in the School of Dentistry of the Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS), in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Cephalograms were imported to Quick Ceph Studio and then to Keynote for analysis. Minimum, maximum, mean, standard deviation, and mean difference were used to describe the data. Agreement between the two techniques was assessed by the Bland-Altman plot, linear regression, and interexaminer reliability tests. A level of significance was considered at P < .05, and a 95% CI was estimated for the outcomes in the study groups.

Results: The majority of the mean values obtained from Quick Ceph were greater (P < .05) than those obtained from Keynote. According to Bland-Altman plots, all measurements were within the limit of agreement except for only five linear variables. The interexaminer reliability test showed no agreement between the two instruments for all linear parameters except for the LAFH: TAFH, whereas all angular measurements revealed good to excellent agreement (ICC: 0.75 to 0.97) between the methods.

Conclusions: The measurements obtained with the Keynote software were found to be clinically reliable since the limits did not exceed the maximum acceptable difference between the methods. The two software instruments were considered to be in agreement and can be used interchangeably.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Accuracy and reliability of Keynote for tracing and analyzing cephalometric radiographs. Invisalign ClinCheck can predict open gingival embrasures in adult extraction cases: a pilot study. The effect of clear aligner and fixed orthodontic treatment on the development of pulp stones: a retrospective observational study. Effects of printing layer thickness and build orientation on the mechanical properties and color stability of 3D-printed clear aligners. Is the Peer Assessment Rating index a valid measure for change in Oral Health-Related Quality of Life following orthodontic treatment? Results of a cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1