The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Nemoceph and Foxit PDF Reader for Steiner\'s Cephalometric Analysis

Pramod Shetty, Reena Ranjeet Kumar, Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Prakrathi Shetty

Keywords : Cephalometry, Digital imaging, Onscreen tracing

Citation Information : Shetty P, Kumar RR, Singh DP, Shetty P. Comparative Evaluation of Nemoceph and Foxit PDF Reader for Steiner\'s Cephalometric Analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (9):1051-1055.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2645

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-09-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the values of Steiner\'s cephalometric analysis using Nemoceph and Foxit PDF Reader. No significant difference between the two methods will result in that Foxit PDF Reader can be used as a cost-effective alternative. Materials and methods: This study was conducted on 100 digital lateral cephalograms taken from the same machine. The samples were collected by nonprobability convenience sampling procedures. These images were analyzed for Steiner\'s cephalometric analysis using two software packages. Results: The skeletal and dental values showed no statistically significant difference in the majority, except for the L1-NA (linear) and L1-NB (linear). Conclusion: Results showed that there is a high agreement between the two methods. Clinical significance: This article provides a simple and cost-effective method of onscreen cephalometric analysis. This technique uses the inbuilt measurement tools in the tool bar of our daily use software. The method can be used independently anywhere without any internet connection and software subscription.


PDF Share
  1. Kommi PB, Venkatesan R, et al. A Cephalometric Assessment of Ideal Nasolabial Angle Range for South Indian Population. J Int Oral Health 2016;8(2):205–207.
  2. Soni A, Alladwar N, et al. Evaluation of lateral Cephalometric Norms for Burstone's Analysis in Chhattisgarh by using Nemoceph Software with Lateral Cephalograms Taken in Natural Head Position. Int J Oral Health Dent 2015;1(3):114–119.
  3. Turkdonmez CO, Taner L, et al. Craniofacial Evaluation of Class I Turkish Adults: Bimler Analysis. Turk J Orthod 2014;26(4):169–176.
  4. Turkdonmez CO, Taner L, et al. Craniofacial Evaluation of Class I Turkish Adults: Bimler Analysis. Turk J Orthod 2014;26(4):169–176.
  5. Gribel BF, Gribel MN, et al. Accuracy And Reliability Of Craniometric Measurements On Lateral Cephalometry And 3D Measurements On CBCT Scans. Angle Orthod 2011;81:28–37. DOI: 10.2319/032210-166.1.
  6. Naragond A, Kenganal S, et al. Diagnostic Limitations of Cephalometrics in Orthodontics-A Review. J Dent Med Sci 2012;3(1):30–35.
  7. Ganna PS, Shetty SK, et al. An Evaluation of the Errors in Cephalometric Measurements on Scanned Lateral Cephalometric Images using Computerized Cephalometric Program and Conventional Tracings. J Indian Orthod Soc 2014;48(4):388–392. DOI: 10.1177/0974909820140605S.
  8. Anh TT, Dang TV, et al. Cephalometric Norms For The Vietnamese Population. APOS Trends Orthod 2016;6(4):200–204. DOI: 10.4103/2321-1407.186435.
  9. Purmal K, Alam MK, et al. Cephalometric Norms of Malaysian Adult Chinese. Int Med J 2013;20(1):87–91.
  10. Da Silva JMG, De Melo Castilho JC, et al. Comparative Study Between Conventional And Digital Radiography In Cephalometric Analysis. J Health Sci Inst 2011;29(1):19–22.
  11. Gupta G, Tripathi AA, et al. Cephalometric VTO: A Blueprint. Heal Talk 2013;05(3):47–50.
  12. Rodrigues CD, Da Silveira MMF, et al. Evaluation Of Indirect Methods Of Digitization Of Cephalometric Radiographs In Comparison With The direct Digital Method. Dental Press J Orthod 2010;15(4):124–132. DOI: 10.1590/S2176-94512010000400017.
  13. Oshagh M, Shahidi S, et al. Effects Of Image Enhancement On Reliability Of Landmark Identification In Digital Cephalometry. Indian J Dent Res 2013;24(1):98–103.
  14. Segura FJE, Valverde AS, et al. Comparative Study Between Digital And Manual Cephalometry With Digital Radiographs. Rev Mex Ortodoncia 2014;2(2):93–96.
  15. Sayinsu K, Isik F, et al. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:105–108. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjl065.
  16. Grybauskas S, Balciuniene I, et al. Validity and Reproducibility of Cephalometric Measurements Obtained from Digital Photographs of Analogue Headfilms. Stomatologija Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal 2007;9(4):114–120.
  17. Nouri M, Hamidiaval S, et al. Efficacy of a Newly Designed Cephalometric Analysis Software for McNamara Analysis in Comparison with Dolphin Software. J Dent 2015;12(1):60–69.
  18. Paixao MB, Sobral MC, et al. Comparative Study Between Manual And Digital Cephalometric Tracing Using Dolphin Imaging Software With Lateral Radiographs. Dental Press J Orthod 2010;15(6):123–130. DOI: 10.1590/S2176-94512010000600016.
  19. Erkan M, Gurel HG, et al. Reliability of Four Different Computerized Cephalometric Analysis Programs. Eur J Orthod 2012;34(3):318–321. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr008.
  20. Kumar V, Sundareswaran S. Cephalo metric assessment of sagittal dysplasia: a review of twenty one methods. J Indian Orthod Soc 2015;48(1):33–41.
  21. Cutoviu T, Joviu N, et al. Cephalometric analysis of the middle part of the face in patients with mandibular prognathism. Vojnosanit Pregl 2014;71(11):1026–1033. DOI: 10.2298/VSP1411026C.
  22. Purmal K, Alam MK, et al. Cephalometric Norms of Malaysian Adult Chinese. Int Med J 2013;20(1):87–91.
  23. McNamara JA. A Method of Cephalometric Evaluation. Am J Orthod 1984;86(6):449–469. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9416(84)90352-X.
  24. Naoumova J, Lindman R. A Comparison of Manual Traced Images and Corresponding Scanned Radiographs Digitally Traced. Eur J Orthod 2009;31(3):247–253. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn110.
  25. Kumar D, Solanki R, et al. Cephalometric Landmark Identification by Conventional and Digital Direct Radiography in Skeletal Class II Individuals. Int J Res Educ Sci Methods 2015;3(12):6–10.
  26. Oshagh M, Shahidi S, et al. Effects Of Image Enhancement On Reliability Of Landmark Identification In Digital Cephalometry. Indian J Dent Res 2013;24(1):98–103. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.114958.
  27. Prawat JS, Nieberg L, et al. A Comparision Between Radiographically And Sonically Produced Cephalometric Values. Angle Orthod 1995;65(4):271–276.
  28. Shahidi S, Oshagh M, et al. Accuracy of Computerized Automatic Identification of Cephalometric Landmarks by a Designed Software. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42:1–8. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20110187.
  29. Durao APR, Morosolli A, et al. Cephalometric landmark variability among orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists: a comparative study. Imaging Sci Dent 2015;45:213–220. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2015.45.4.213.
  30. Goracci C, Ferrari M. Reproducibility of measurements in Tablet-assisted, PC-Aided, and Manual Cephalometric Analysis. Angle Orthod 2014;84:437–442. DOI: 10.2319/061513-451.1.
  31. Rusu OL, Petcu AE, et al. Reliability and Accuracy of Three Different Computerized Cephalometric Analysis Software. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi 2015;119(1):248–256.
  32. Correia TRGS, Sena LMFD, et al. Cephalometric Analysis: Concordance Between Software. Rev Gaucha Odontol (Porto Alegre) 2017;65(4): 321–325. DOI: 10.1590/1981-863720170002000063275.
  33. Celik E, Polat-Ozsoy O, et al. Comparison of Cephalometric Measurements with Digital Versus Conventional Cephalometric Analysis. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:241–246. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn105.
  34. Sommer T, Ciesielski R, et al. Precision of Cephalometric Analysis via Fully and Semiautomatic Evaluation of Digital Lateral Cephalographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009;38:401–406. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/85543699.
  35. Tsorovas G, Karsten ALA. A Comparison of Hand-Tracing and Cephalometric Analysis Computer Programs With and Without Advanced Features — Accuracy and Time Demands. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:721–728. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq009.
  36. Aldrees AM. Evaluation of Incisors Inclination in Five Cephalometric Analysis Methods. Pak Oral Dent J 2010;30(2):1–8.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.