Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reproducibility of Computerized Cephalometric Analysis Software Compared with Conventional Manual Tracing for Analyzing Skeletal Stability After Orthognathic Surgery

  • ORIGINAL RESEARCH
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to compare the difference between analyzing skeletal stability after orthognathic surgery by lateral cephalogram measurement created from Dolphin software (version 11.95) compared with the manual technique.

Methods

Twenty-eight patients who underwent mandibular setback surgery (BSSRO) were randomly selected between 2015 and 2021. Serial lateral cephalograms were analyzed at four different time sets postoperatively, and a total of 112 cephalometric radiographs were obtained. Horizontal measurement (BX), vertical measurement (BY), and 3 angular measurements (SNB, ANB, and Gonial angle) were analyzed by manual tracing and Dolphin software by 2 examiners. The intraclass correlation coefficient determined the intra-rater reliability. Parameter differences between timelines were observed for skeletal stability, and mean values between methods were compared using the Student’s t-test.

Results

Both examiners were generally consistent in the repeated measurements (ICCs of the manual method ranged from 0.926 to 0.994, and the digital method ranged from 0.719 to 0.956). All variables represented skeletal stability at T0–T1, T0–T2, and T0–T3 showed no statistically significant differences between methods except ANB (T0–T1; p value = 0.009).

Conclusions

Computerized cephalometric analysis software is relatively reproducible for assessing skeletal changes after orthognathic surgery and can be used routinely in follow-up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Research Resource Identifiers (RRID) for Software: IBM SPSS software version 26.0 (IBM Co., NY, USA) RRID:SCR_002865. Dolphin imaging software version 11.95 RRID:SCR_023513.

References

  1. Hurst CA, Eppley BL, Havlik RJ, Sadove AM (2007) Surgical cephalometrics: applications and developments. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(6):92–104. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000282728.97278.a2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ongkosuwito EM, Katsaros C, van’t Hof MA, Bodegom JC, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM (2002) The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of analogue and digital methods. Eur J Orthod. 24(6):655–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/24.6.655

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jaworski A, Smektała T, Królikowski M, Sporniak-Tutak K, Olszewski R (2016) How do landmark deviations affect angular measurements? The concept of individual cephalometric calibration. Dent Med Probl. 53:309–319. https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/62481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mahto R, Kharbanda O, Duggal R, Sardana H (2016) A comparison of cephalometric measurements obtained from two computerized cephalometric softwares with manual tracings. J Indian Orthod Soc 50:162–170. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-5742.186359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Polat-Ozsoy O, Gokcelik A, Toygar Memikoğlu TU (2009) Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods. Eur J Orthod 31(3):254–259. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Santoro M, Jarjoura K, Cangialosi TJ (2006) Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 129(3):345–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen CM, Hsu HJ, Hsu KJ, Tseng YC (2022) Clinical significance of postoperative skeletal relapse in the treatment of mandibular prognathism: receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. J Formos Med Assoc 121(12):2593–2600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2022.07.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mulier D, Gaitán Romero L, Führer A, Martin C, Shujaat S, Shaheen E, Politis C, Jacobs R (2021) Long-term dental stability after orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 43(1):104–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjaa022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun T (2007) An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod 29(1):105–108. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjl065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Uysal T, Baysal A, Yagci A (2009) Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses. Eur J Orthod 31(5):523–528. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Paixão MB, Sobral MC, Vogel CJ, Araujo TM (2010) Comparative study between manual and digital cephalometric tracing using dolphin imaging software with lateral radiographs. Dental Press J Orthod. 15:123–130. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512010000600016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Albarakati S, Kula K, Ghoneima A (2012) The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41(1):11–17. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/37010910

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ahmad S (2016) Reliability and accuracy of dolphin software compared with conventional method for cephalometric evaluation. J Clin Med Res 1:11–16

    Google Scholar 

  14. de Abreu DP, Freitas KMS, Nomura S, Valarelli FP, Cançado RH (2016) Comparison among manual and computerized cephalometrics using the softwares dolphin imaging and dentofacial planner. Dent Oral Craniofacial Res 2(6):1–5. https://doi.org/10.15761/DOCR.1000186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Joss CU, Thüer UW (2008) Stability of hard tissue profile after mandibular setback in sagittal split osteotomies: a longitudinal and long-term follow-up study. Eur J Orthod 30(4):352–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Perinetti G (2018) StaTips part IV: selection, interpretation and reporting of the intraclass correlation coefficient. South Eur J Orthod Dentofac Res 5:3–5. https://doi.org/10.5937/sejodr5-17434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Donatsky O, Bjørn-Jørgensen J, Holmqvist-Larsen M, Hillerup S (1997) Computerized cephalometric evaluation of orthognathic surgical precision and stability in relation to maxillary superior repositioning combined with mandibular advancement or setback. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55:1071–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(97)90283-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S (1996) Digital imaging of cephalometric radiography, part 1: advantages and limitations of digital imaging. Angle Orthod 66(1):37–42

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Power G, Breckon J, Sherriff M, McDonald F (2005) Dolphin imaging software: an analysis of the accuracy of cephalometric digitization and orthognathic prediction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34(6):619–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2005.04.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF, Chen KC (2000) Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod 70(5):387–392

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gregston MD, Kula TJ, Hardman PK, Glaros AG, Kula KS (2004) A comparison of conventional and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software: I. Hard tissue. Semin Orthod 10:204–211. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2004.05.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hagemann K, Vollmer D, Niegel T, Ehmer U, Reuter I (2000) Prospective study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional and digital lateral headfilms. J Orofac Orthop 61(2):91–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01300351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang J, Langer S (1997) A brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems. J Digit Imaging 10(4):158–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03168838

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Macrì V, Wenzel A (1993) Reliability of landmark recording on film and digital lateral cephalograms. Eur J Orthod 15(2):137–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/15.2.137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nouri M, Hamidiaval S, Akbarzadeh Baghban A, Basafa M, Fahim M (2015) Efficacy of a newly designed cephalometric analysis software for McNamara analysis in comparison with dolphin software. J Dent (Tehran) 12(1):60–69

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Dr. Pawaris Chanachol for computerized cephalometric analysis.

Funding

The authors did not receive any specific Grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors for the submitted work. All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest of non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, 34 Henri Dunant Road, Wangmai, Patumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand

    Phu Hnin Thet & Boosana Kaboosaya

Authors
  1. Phu Hnin Thet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Boosana Kaboosaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PHT contributed to methodology, software, validation, investigation, resources, data curation, original draft preparation, visualization, and provision. BK (corresponding author): conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, visualization, reviewing and editing, supervision, and project administration.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Boosana Kaboosaya.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study was approved by The Human Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand (HREC-DCU 2021-026). This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thet, P.H., Kaboosaya, B. Reproducibility of Computerized Cephalometric Analysis Software Compared with Conventional Manual Tracing for Analyzing Skeletal Stability After Orthognathic Surgery. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 22, 833–840 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-023-02071-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-023-02071-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation