Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability of Cephalometric Measurements Performed on Smartphone-Based Application and Computer-Based Imaging Software: A Comparative Study.
{"title":"Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability of Cephalometric Measurements Performed on Smartphone-Based Application and Computer-Based Imaging Software: A Comparative Study.","authors":"Vinay Kumar Chugh, Navleen Kaur Bhatia, Dipti Shastri, Sam Prasanth Shankar, Surjit Singh, Rinkle Sardana","doi":"10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2022.60","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim was to compare the reliability of cephalometric analysis using a smartphone-based application with conventional computer-based imaging software.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 50 subjects (26 males, 24 females; mean age, 19.2 years; ±4.2) were traced using the OneCeph® application and Dolphin imaging software®. Two independent observers identified seventeen landmarks and measured fourteen cephalometric measurements at an interval of. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability were evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Student's t-test was used to compare the means of two measurement methods for observer 1 and observer 2. Additionally, the time taken to complete the cephalometric measurements was also compared between the two methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Good (ICC 0.75-0.90) to excellent (ICC 0.90-1.00) interobserver and intraobserver reliability was observed for all hard and soft tissue measurements with both methods. No significant differences were found between the two measurement methods for both observers (p<0.05). OneCeph application took significantly more time to complete the analysis than Dolphin imaging software (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cephalometric measurements made through a smartphone-based application showed good to excellent interobserver and intraobserver reliability and are comparable with the computer-based software. Therefore, it can be recommended for clinical use. The time taken to complete the cephalometric measurements was more with a smartphone-based application (OneCeph application) compared to computer-based software (Dolphin imaging software).</p>","PeriodicalId":37013,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","volume":"36 2","pages":"94-100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/92/4e/tjo-36-94.PMC10318850.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2022.60","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The aim was to compare the reliability of cephalometric analysis using a smartphone-based application with conventional computer-based imaging software.
Methods: Pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 50 subjects (26 males, 24 females; mean age, 19.2 years; ±4.2) were traced using the OneCeph® application and Dolphin imaging software®. Two independent observers identified seventeen landmarks and measured fourteen cephalometric measurements at an interval of. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability were evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Student's t-test was used to compare the means of two measurement methods for observer 1 and observer 2. Additionally, the time taken to complete the cephalometric measurements was also compared between the two methods.
Results: Good (ICC 0.75-0.90) to excellent (ICC 0.90-1.00) interobserver and intraobserver reliability was observed for all hard and soft tissue measurements with both methods. No significant differences were found between the two measurement methods for both observers (p<0.05). OneCeph application took significantly more time to complete the analysis than Dolphin imaging software (p<0.001).
Conclusion: Cephalometric measurements made through a smartphone-based application showed good to excellent interobserver and intraobserver reliability and are comparable with the computer-based software. Therefore, it can be recommended for clinical use. The time taken to complete the cephalometric measurements was more with a smartphone-based application (OneCeph application) compared to computer-based software (Dolphin imaging software).