Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size   Users Online: 833
Home About us Editorial board Search Browse articles Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 111-117

Comparison of two three-dimensional cephalometric analysis computer software


1 Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Canada
2 Division of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3 Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Orthodontic Graduate Program Clinic, University of Illinois, Chicago, USA

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Tarek El-Bialy
7-020D Katz Group Centre for Pharmacy and Health Research, University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E1
Canada
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2278-0203.143230

Rights and Permissions

Background: Three-dimensional cephalometric analyses are getting more attraction in orthodontics. The aim of this study was to compare two softwares to evaluate three-dimensional cephalometric analyses of orthodontic treatment outcomes. Materials and Methods: Twenty cone beam computed tomography images were obtained using i-CAT ® imaging system from patient's records as part of their regular orthodontic records. The images were analyzed using InVivoDental5.0 (Anatomage Inc.) and 3DCeph™ (University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA) software. Before and after orthodontic treatments data were analyzed using t-test. Results: Reliability test using interclass correlation coefficient was stronger for InVivoDental5.0 (0.83-0.98) compared with 3DCeph™ (0.51-0.90). Paired t-test comparison of the two softwares shows no statistical significant difference in the measurements made in the two softwares. Conclusions: InVivoDental5.0 measurements are more reproducible and user friendly when compared to 3DCeph™. No statistical difference between the two softwares in linear or angular measurements. 3DCeph™ is more time-consuming in performing three-dimensional analysis compared with InVivoDental5.0. Clinical Implications: InVivoDental5.0 utilizes less time in performing three-dimensional cephalometric measurements compared to 3DCeph™ system.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2468    
    Printed68    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded361    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal