Menu
Aim: study was aimed evaluate intraobserver error in locating various cephalometric landmarks in manual method.
Materials and Methods: A total of 30 pre-treatment lateral cephalogramswere taken which were selected randomly from
the department records. The lateralcephalogramsrecords were traced mannualyfor various cephalometric landmarks at
7thdays and 14th days intervals to check for intra-observer error using a double determination test.
Results: Datawere described as mean and standard deviation. The intra-observer correlation was assessed using the intraclass
correlation coefficient.P value<.05 was considered statistically significant.
Conclusion- There was no significant difference seen in values obtained from tracing done at 7th and 14th day. Both values
showed correlation and there was no intra-observer error in manual tracing for locating cephalometric landmarks.
1. Kim IH, Kim YG, Kim S, Park JW, Kim N. Comparing intra-observer variation and external variations of a fully automated cephalometric analysis with a cascade convolutional
neural net. Sci Rep.2021; 11:7925.
2. Cohen AM. Uncertainty in cephalometrics. Br J Orthod 1984; 11:44–48.
3. Cooke MS, Wei SH. Cephalometric errors: a comparison between repeat measurements and retaken radiographs. Aust Dent J 1991; 36:38–43.
4. Sandler PJ. Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements. Br J Orthod 1988; 15:105–110.
5. Santoro M, Jarjoura K, Cangialosi TJ. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:345–351
6. KasinathanG et al. Reliability in Landmark Plotting between Manual and Computerized Method – A Cephalometric Study. International Journal of Scientific Study. Mar 2017;4(12):73-78.
7. Broadbent BH. A new X-ray technique and its appication to orthodontics. Angle Orthod. 1931; 1:45–66.
8. Yang S, Song ES, Lee ES et al. Ceph-Net: automatic detection of cephalometric landmarks on scanned lateral cephalograms from children and adolescents using an attention-based stacked regression network. BMC Oral Health.2023; 23, 803.
9. Kim H, Shim E, Park J, Kim Y-J, Lee U, Kim Y. Web-based fully automated cephalometric analysis by deep learning. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2020;194:105513.
10. Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun T. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric
images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29(1):105–108
11. Ricketts RM, Bench RW, Hilgers JJ, Schulhof R. An overview of computerized cephalometrics. Am J Orthod. 1972; 61:1–28.
12. Houston W, Maher R, McElroy D, Sherriff M J. Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. Eur. J. Orthodont.1986; 8:149–151.
13. Baumrind S, Frantz RCJA. The reliability of head film measurements: 1 Landmark identification. Am. J. Orthodont. 1971; 60:111–127.
14. Houston WJA. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am. J. Orthodont.;1983; 83:382–390.
15. Savage AW, Showfety KJ, Yancey JJAJ. Repeated measures analysis of geometrically constructed and directly determined cephalometric points. Am J Orthod Dentofac. Orthop.
1987. 91:295–299.
16. Stabrun AE, Danielsen KJTE. Precision in cephalometric landmark identification. Eur J Orthod. 1982; 4:185–196.
17. Battagel JM. A comparative assessment of cephalometric errors.European Journal of Orthodontics.1993; 15: 305–314.
18. Kamoen A, Dermaut L, Verbeeck R. The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. Eur J Orthod.2001; 23:569-578
Desh Bhagat University,
Off to NH-44, Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh,
District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab- 147301, India