Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional film, hardcopy, and monitor-displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique

被引:56
作者
Geelen, W
Wenzel, A
Gotfredsen, E
Kruger, M
Hansson, LG
机构
[1] Aarhus Univ, Royal Dent Coll, Dept Oral Radiol, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark
[2] Aarhus Univ, Royal Dent Coll, Dept Orthodont, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark
[3] Univ Lund Hosp, Dept Diagnost Radiol, S-22185 Lund, Sweden
关键词
D O I
10.1093/ejo/20.3.331
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on (1) conventional films, and images acquired by storage phosphor digital radiography both on (2) hardcopy and (3) monitor-displayed versions. The material consisted of 19 cephalograms for each image modality. The phosphor plates were scanned in an image reader and the 10-bit normalized, raw data digital images were converted to 8-bit TIFF images for PC monitor-display. The digital hardcopies were produced in a laser printer. Six observers were asked to record 21 cephalometric landmarks on each conventional film, hardcopy, and monitor-displayed image. For the films and hardcopies, the landmark co-ordinates were recorded via a digitizing tablet. For the monitor-displayed images, the co-ordinates were recorded directly from the monitor using a dedicated Windows-based cephalometric program. Reproducibility was defined as an observer's deviation (in mm) from the mean between all observers. Differences between the image modalities and between the observers were tested by two-way analysis of variance for each landmark. There was a statistically significant difference between the reproducibility of film, hardcopy and monitor-displayed images in 11 of the 21 landmarks. There was no unequivocal trend that one modality was always the best. For a full: cephalometric recording (the sum of all 21 landmarks), the monitor-displayed images (mean = 25.3 mm) had a lower precision than film (P < 0.005) and hard-copy (P < 0.02). There was no significant difference between film (mean = 21.8 mm) and hardcopy (mean = 22.8 mm). The lower reproducibility seen for the monitor-displayed images is most probably of little clinical significance.
引用
收藏
页码:331 / 340
页数:10
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], PRAKT KIEFERORTHOP
[2]  
BARENGHI A, 1995, ORTHODONTIC CEPHALOM, P221
[3]   RELIABILITY OF HEAD FILM MEASUREMENTS .1. LANDMARK IDENTIFICATION [J].
BAUMRIND, S ;
FRANTZ, RC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 1971, 60 (02) :111-&
[4]   On the dynamic range of different X-ray photon detectors in intra-oral radiography. A comparison of image quality in film, charge-coupled device and storage phosphor systems [J].
Borg, E ;
Grondahl, HG .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 1996, 25 (02) :82-88
[5]   DIGITAL SKELETAL RADIOGRAPHY [J].
BUCKWALTER, KA ;
BRAUNSTEIN, EM .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1992, 158 (05) :1071-1080
[6]   PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF PHOTOSTIMULABLE PHOSPHOR COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY [J].
COWEN, AR ;
WORKMAN, A ;
PRICE, JS .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1993, 66 (784) :332-345
[7]   TELERADIOLOGY - RESULTS OF A FIELD TRIAL [J].
CURTIS, DJ ;
GAYLER, BW ;
GITLIN, JN ;
HARRINGTON, MB .
RADIOLOGY, 1983, 149 (02) :415-418
[8]   DIGITAL IMAGE-PROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR CEPHALOMETRIC ANALYSIS [J].
DOLER, W ;
STEINHOFEL, N ;
JAGER, A .
COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, 1991, 21 (1-2) :23-33
[9]   COMPUTERIZED DIGITAL ENHANCEMENT IN CRANIOFACIAL CEPHALOMETRIC RADIOGRAPHY [J].
EPPLEY, BL ;
SADOVE, AM .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 1991, 49 (10) :1038-1043
[10]  
Forsyth DB, 1996, ANGLE ORTHOD, V66, P37