Comparison of conventional and digital cephalometric analysis: A pilot study

• Main Authors: Hemlata Bhagwan Tanwani, Sheetal Sameer Potnis, Sandesh Satish Baralay, Sameer Sidagouda Patil
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2014-01-01
• Series: Journal of Dental and Allied Sciences
• Subjects: Burstone analysis; Dolphin Imaging software; manual tracings; McNamara analysis
• Online Access: http://www.jdas.in/article.asp?issn=2277-4696;year=2014;volume=3;issue=2;spage=80;epage=84;aulast=Tanwani
• ISSN: 2277-4696; 2277-6672

Aim: The aim of the study was to analyze and compare the manual cephalometric tracings with computerized cephalometric tracings using Burstone hard tissue analysis and McNamara analysis. Materials and Methods: Conventional lateral cephalograms of 20 subjects were obtained and manually traced. The radiographs were subsequently scanned and digitized using Dolphin Imaging software version 11.7. McNamara analysis and Burstone hard tissue analysis were performed by both conventional and digital method. No differentiations were made for age or gender. Data were subjected to statistical analysis. Statistical analysis was undertaken using SPSS 17.0 version (Chicago, Illinois, USA) statistical software program. A paired t-test was used to detect differences between the manual and digital methods. Statistical significance was set at the P < 0.05 level of confidence. Results: (A) From Burstone analysis variables N-Pg II Hp show statistically very significant difference, and ANS-N, U1-NF, N-B II Hp, L1-Mp, and Go-Pg shows the statistically significant difference. (B) From McNamara analysis variables Nasolabial angle and L1-APog show statistically significant differences and the Mandibular length shows the statistically very significant difference. Conclusion: According to this study, is reasonable to conclude that the manual and digital tracings show the statistically significant difference.