Picture archiving and communications systems: a study of reliability of orthodontic cephalometric analysis.

The objectives of this study were to investigate the possibility of using a picture archiving and communications system (PACS) for basic chairside cephalometric analysis and to compare PACS with hand-tracing and on-screen digitization using a commercial program (Dolphin Imaging Plus Version 10.0). One hundred digital lateral cephalometric radiographs were selected and analysed using the Eastman analysis. Angular and linear measurements were recorded and a single operator traced each radiograph twice, using each of the following methods: PACS, hand-tracing, and Dolphin Imaging. The British Standards Institution Coefficient of Repeatability was used to investigate repeatability within each method and the Bland and Altman method to investigate systematic and random errors between methods. The PACS was more repeatable than Dolphin for measuring the angle between the upper incisors and the maxillary plane but was less repeatable than hand-tracing for measuring percentage lower anterior face height (LAFH). There were statistically significant systematic differences between PACS, hand-tracing, and Dolphin for measurement of lower incisor inclination. However, all three methods agreed, on average, and differences between methods were all within clinically acceptable limits. PACS was found to be clinically acceptable to be used chairside, without the need for hand-tracing or involvement of any orthodontic software. This offers the freedom to analyse digital cephalograms within a clinical area at the same appointment as when the digital radiograph is taken.

[1]  A Wenzel,et al.  Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional film, hardcopy, and monitor-displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique. , 1998, European journal of orthodontics.

[2]  E. Çelik,et al.  Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. , 2009, European journal of orthodontics.

[3]  James Richard Ewart Mills,et al.  Principles and practice of orthodontics , 1982 .

[4]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[5]  A Richardson,et al.  A comparison of traditional and computerized methods of cephalometric analysis. , 1981, European journal of orthodontics.

[6]  Sheldon Baumrind,et al.  The reliability of head film measurements , 1971 .

[7]  M Sherriff,et al.  Dolphin Imaging Software: an analysis of the accuracy of cephalometric digitization and orthognathic prediction. , 2005, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[8]  S Baumrind,et al.  The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. , 1971, American journal of orthodontics.

[9]  R G Oliver,et al.  Cephalometric Analysis Comparing Five Different Methods , 1991, British journal of orthodontics.

[10]  J. Sanfridsson Orthopaedic measurements with computed radiography: Methodological development, accuracy, and radiation dose with special reference to the weight-bearing lower extremity and the dislocating patella , 2001, Acta radiologica. Supplementum.

[12]  K. Sayınsu,et al.  An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. , 2007, European journal of orthodontics.

[13]  Paul J. Watson,et al.  Statistics for Veterinary and Animal Science , 1999 .

[14]  W J Houston,et al.  The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. , 1983, American journal of orthodontics.

[15]  B. S. Savara,et al.  Analysis of errors in cephalometric measurement of three-dimensional distances on the maxilla. , 1966, Angle Orthodontist.

[16]  Omur Polat-Ozsoy,et al.  Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods. , 2009, European journal of orthodontics.

[17]  S Richmond,et al.  Digital imaging of cephalometric radiography, Part 1: Advantages and limitations of digital imaging. , 1996, The Angle orthodontist.

[18]  Laurent Degos,et al.  HISTOCOMPATIBILITY DETERMINANTS IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS , 1974 .

[19]  D. H. Lewis,et al.  Principles and practice of orthodontics, 2nd edition , 1989 .

[20]  P. J. Sandler,et al.  Reproducibility of Cephalometric Measurements , 1988, British journal of orthodontics.

[21]  F. Thorburn BOOK REVIEWS | The Principles and Practice of Regional Anaesthesia 2nd Edn., WILDSMITH, J. A. W., AND, ARMITAGE, E. N., (editors). Published by Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh. Pp. 256; indexed; illustrated. Price £55.00. , 1994 .