مقایسه دقت دو روش دیجیتال و دستی در اندازه‏گیری‏های سفالومتری جانبی

!

* #$ %&$ ' **

( ' ***

*

** ! "

# $ %& ' (

***

))* +

(

) * + :

19 / 9 / 88

–

12 * + :

25 / 11 / 88

56

:

!

. # $% &'( ) *

+ ' , (

'%- ' . % /

01

23 4% % 5

5 6 # 78 23

' % 3 9 + .

: : # $% 6 ;

< <= (

, 3 > ?% @ %

% 1

A 8 #% 3

30

23 Sandwich ' '@ 7

. 23 6 > . 3 1 , D< 1 . (

% ! %0 (

' -.

15

3 . % G %'

10 ' , 3 23 3 ( $ 3 3

3 A =%

' 1 , + 4% %

. $

' ,

5 23 (

15

6 %

30 ) 3 %

H A ( I * Pearson

A =%

'@ . 23 3 4% Paired t test

' , .

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

# ## #

- . / 012 3! 2 :

5. 67

8 )7 ' 5 9

:; : 6289913 , 0711 09171171643

E-mail: hedayatz@yahoo.com

Evaluation of Agreement between Digital and Analogue Lateral Cephalometric Measurements

Zohreh Hedayati*#, Shoaleh Shahidi**, Sasan Rasaee***

* Associate Professor, Dept of Orthodontics, Dental School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. ** Associate Professor, Dept of Maxillofascial Radiology, Dental School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences,

Shiraz, Iran.

*** Postgraduate Student, Dept of Prosthodontics, Dental School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

Received: 10 December 2009; Accepted: 14 February 2010

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of cephalometric measurements obtained from digital tracing software compared with equivalent hand traced measurements to determine the more accurate and useful method. Materials & Methods: Digital and analogue radiographic images of 30 orthodontic patients were obtained through Sandwich technique (a conventional radiographic film and a digital image are produced simultaneously). Fifteen cephalometric landmarks were identified and 10 linear and angular measurements calculated, both manually and with digital tracing software. Measurement errors were assessed for each method by duplicating measurements of 15 randomly selected radiographs using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. A paired t- test was used to detect differences between the manual and digital methods.

Results: Differences between the two methods for SNA, U1-L1and Wit’s appraisal were statistically significant (P<0.05). In

error measurements, an overall greater variability in the digital cephalometric measurements was found.

Conclusion: The two tracing methods provided similar clinical results; therefore, efficient digital cephalometric software could be reliably chosen as a routine diagnostic tool due to its advantages (lower exposure to X-ray, image development bypass, image quality enhancement through computer).

Key words: Digital cephalometry, sandwich technique, manual tracing, lateral cephalometry.

# ##

#Corresponding Author: hedayatz@yahoo.com

!" # $% $ . .. ) $ ( )(* + ( ( 7 : ' ! J '%- ' K 23 3 6 &L

' , SNA 3 U1-L1

3 Wit’s M = %-#% ' ) 05 / 0 P< .( Q R ) $ A =% '

, (

J '

23 .

: + % 7 J% < K 23 3 ( < $ %

' ( .

% 6

% ? + S T '

> TJ < 3 . ! U U 3 ' %

? #% 3 > A 0% &V ) 1 #@ W( ? A+

X% Y 3 > Z 4 3 2 [ ) \ 0 3 @ % 3 Q A] 3 7^ ? %

'@ . 8 %9 : % )

K 3' 23

) 5 )

A 8 %

. / 1389 34 / 1 : 94 81 .

!" #$% % & '

#

( '

) # *% !" + ,%" #

- * % . / ) # "%0 # ' 1+

' #

+ , 2 + 3 . 4" 5 6 " " * .

8 *

,% %

' !" 9 %:

/ 1 < = ) ' 2 # , . / 2

# * !"

/ ? . ) 1 ( B% % # % C* # *% & " D 2

' !" *

E * 4 C F) % G 2 " '

" !" H" I %=

.

C2%* 4 C J !" KH 4" L* " = E * "%0 ' = M *

. "%0

G 2 4 C % . F %*N ) ! % ) 4 " . C * L N C2%* *

. F) # *% L

!" * % L ") 0 % . ) 1 ( 1997 lim & ' ) )

2 ( I Q 2

(Reliability) E * 4 C

' ) !" + ,%"

Q %I 2 ) C J* %* % C*

1. Trace

2. Tracing

' 3* # "%0 / ) 4 L % D 2 RS & ) 05 / 0 P> (.

"%0 3 C J*

% C* # *% "%0 " H* D 2 !" C= K' % ) .

Hageman & ' )

) 3 ( H H6 1999

& Q 2 4 ( * (Reproducibility)

E * ' #

D 2 %I !" ") 0 -" *% X S* + " ? # .

1 * C= & " )SC 7

/ 23 %

% = K' .

M % = 3 * G H6 Chen

) 4 ( < [3 Q 2

E * ' # *% B% )

\% N !" )

% = " H* .

+ # J 6* 4 " H*

!" + ,%" # # ? # J 16 %* 19 E * = . . C2%* RS Q %I

E * ' ^ 6 + ,%" B% ) 4 # *N

C* _ Q 2 ) % E * < [3

' B%

% % C* B% " H* D 2 !" .

Turner & ' ) )

5 ( & Q 2 Reproducibility

E * < [3 '

= 4& # *% ") 0

& % "

. #) ") 0 (3"

K"

`a ) =

1 N # *%

1+

Screen ceph + , 9 %:

. 4 RS M % * 1 *

F) Q %I Screen ceph

+ 2

Q_ % ' * & Q #

" ) 6* '

[ # $) . # # 1+

' H H6 #

b%QJ* .

9 H H6 Ongkosuwito

& ' ) )

6 ( 4 C L

E * # "c. & Q 2 '

+ ,%" B% )

) !" \% N

+ "c. ! F) .

) F) :

# , ' # \% N + , 9 %:

. F)

) # ,

' + ,%" #) !" # '

#

= 4& 300 DPI

= ! .

4"

+ ,%" ' % = 4& & M % .

% F) :

# , ' + ,%" #) !" # '

4& #

e%8) = 600 DPI

% . M % !" B% 1+

AO Ceph 1 N

= .

% C* F) ) ' I Q 2 Q %I .

B% " H* \% N

600 DPI f " H

# , ' % C* .

4& 3 G H6 4"

# J ? 4=% ) ") 0 # ,

' 6

2 5 & Q 2 !" B% B% !* '

B% # ?

\% N 4=% ) ) =

300 D 2

" H* 600

% .

H6 G Chen & ' ) )

7 ( # * % G H6 1

_ Q 2 g !" # *% 1 N

5 # *% .

Bruntz )

& ' ) 8 ( ,% ' # 4&

" H* ) B% = .

L 1 N # *%

!" 1+

Dolphina =

. L N i"

& Q # ' # <[3*

,% '

( ' ) ' D 2 = 4& #

4 C Porion ) Orbitale %= ^ 6 + % "

. Santoro

& ' ) K

) 9 ( 2 H H6

# , ' ) !" # *% # \% N

= L

) - & " j"

. % 4 ) 4"

L C= K -" + ,%" ) ' *

= . 4"

- & ) j") ( -" PSP1 + ,%" /Q + -" )

%I ) = 2 &" % C*

C= L N *1 ' *

%= . # ' J F) 4"

C2%* )

Positioning (

)

) %H 9 +S

K ' 2 5 6 Q 2 9 C J* C * #

Rc % *

. C J* 4" 1 # ,

' #

E * # ! -" *% '

)N %X *

# 9 _SI '

% & Q # .

RS # ,

%J F) ) 4 ) % / Q

/' + &" & Q i" F) ) *

.

4" 1+ 1 N # *%

5%* * b [ %

0 [3 Q ) % _ I D 2

) * =

b [ -" %L # j") - & & " 4 8

C= K ) ' % . g # 5%*

K' 1 * ' .

Sayinsu & ' )

) 10 ( # ' J # ,

' #

2 %* + ,%" B% ) -" *% + ,%" '

* + & M % 300DPI

4&

M % = !" B% `a ) = 1+

Dolphin 9 1 N

= .

B% ) ' # ' % . RS + ,%"

= /' "? ( ' .

3 i"

1+ # # *%

1 N = 4& ") 0

k # ' J # ,

R ,%" " H* '

"

!"

# $% $ . ..

) $ ( )(*

+ (

(

= / ' K" 1+

.

, = ) " f " ! N '

#

%* # *% + ,%" Q !" + ,%" 2 *

9 ) 8 % ) ,

) ) /Q_ ( ' !" #$% % & + 3 . X '

Q R ' G H6 4" -"$% % & #

4 C 2 " H* ) G+ % 1 * " E *

' )

# , ' ) % C* - & B% ) % C* #

!" ) j") F) = L (

)

1+ " Dolphin10 + , 9 %:

. e I 4" R '

G+ % 1 * 4 C # ,

' ") # # ) %I )

!" l " F)

% )

.

CJH* C J* 4" ! # C

30

* 8 H * )

10 ) . 20 ( ) ,

15 m 12 " , b [ .

# *% ") 0 ' % C* ) !"

K -" (Single radiographic exposure)

L

= . ) B% !* 60

*%

*N #

30

) !" L N # 30

% /Q + 9 %: L N # (

.

) , /Q + PSP (Soredex)

9 %: Hybrid

(Sandwich technique) -"

) cm 30 × 24 ( 2

" , % = .

, ) /Q + F) 4"

PSP 2 4" & D H* ) ' *

, . (

' o + ,%" Plan Mega-CC-Proline2000

+ ,%" L L '

= . f?%: %, '

B% ' g% * # *% + ,%"

* Q 2 = & *% N D&3* ' " $%Q

+ ,%" ) ' p e I 4" M" =

fS* L * -" ) &" *

" D&3* ' ) %= + ,%" B% ) ' # = = % ) " J

' % q &" %J

F) 4" (Sandwich technique)

= # ' J

L ( ' C2%* E p ' r + ,%" , '

) !" # 1 ) % C*

K ' Rc C * # *

, .

K M" = ) ) 4 % ' #

%, " , b [ #

) ") 0

*N ) % C* ) !" (

* 0 [3

= %

.

, PSP 1 &

# )

(Digora-Soredex-Class1 laser product type DXR K C Q: +S

Process =

. , /Q + 9% 5 ) %Ls L Processor

- *% ) *

(Conventional) =

. ") 0

* + % a* !" JPEG-100

`a ) t

L /

1+ Dolphin10 ) = DH *

0 F .

) "% 1 N % a* -" # *%

Pentium 4 4" t ? + , 9 %:

K" ") 1+

N [ 4" " 4 *

) =

+ ( ! N * 4" H H6 % . + ,%" ' '

-" M % % C* ) !" #

<0[ *

2 / ) = 15

E *

N ) - *% 10

# , 2 " # # *%

+ , 2 %* ,% B% )

.

+ ,%" ' -" #) 9 %: % C* #

( u%& % H ) * Q % -" v -"

/

= . . ( g% * # ' J K' # %

3 Q -" 10

+ ,%" /

3 .

-" #) !" ") 0 (3"

E * ) = K" '

( 3 -" M %

w%* *

) %= 1+

<[3* D0 *

= . !" ") 0 % )

") 0 H H

* Q * #) 2)

(3" " * %= ( w # , + ,%" #) <[3* JH ) 4 Q: +

+ , 9 %: ") 0 #? ) .

E * ' L ? # 1 N

# *% xQ [* # '

# 1+ = x" C 4 # ,

' %* #

*% %I M %

-1+ `. 4

E * % <[3* '

+ ,%" #) = 4 C #

y" H mm 1 / 0 " 1

= , ) 6*

. `.

/ " , t % %* 9 _SI .

% . # J 6* # 15

4 + ,%" 30

!" 9 %: ) ' ) b [ + ,%" ) ) / = . # F) ' C* R 6 ) 4 ( * < = '

= " H* ) 6* .

' z # ( ' y" 8 4

1 F) ) < = ' " , <[3* ) 6*

.

% . # J F) )

y" 8

( '

% . H* -" % _

Covariance

= " = .

# J '

4 RS - #

# , ' #

F) M * '

#) ) " H* %* #

# , ' 30 ) !" F) l "

t-test Paired

= 6*

) 05 / 0

P<

% D 2 {J D2 % _ # *N = ) ) 1 ) 2 (. "%0 1 ) 2 ) 3 l " % '

= ! #

3 C J* * ' . 7 #) # , '

*N #

30 "%0

\% N !" ) 1 N

# *N i" ) + , 9 %:

" , / X I% * ) .

) w 1

*N i" & 4" (

MH+ '

# , ' # U1-L1

) Wit’s , 1

3 RS 1

) ) mm : " ( = . RS ' # ( 3p # SNA ) U1-L1

) Wit’s 1 *N ) 05 / 0 P< (. # # , ' # SNB GoGn-SN U1-SN

SN-SGn Jarabac index

;IMPA P-value #? 05 / 0

%* p , *N IMPA H* 4" ) 059 / 0 = P ( % . & % _ D 2 # ,

' -" M %

% . #

) ) F) 2

= )N .

9) Q %J # ,

' f " H F) )

3* * = . 4 9) /

' ) ) ) # #

!" F) 06 / 0 73 / 0 ) ) mm : ( F) # ) \% N 4 06 / 0 6 / 0 r * )

} ~ D 2 ) 1 p %

* = . B% # , ' = w &C ( ' y" 8 .

( ' y" 8 % C* + ,%" # (r2)

' r * Q #? 95 / 0 % )

3 ? ( '

b% & Q 2 ( • € Wit’s ) 92 / 0 ( ) ANB ) 93 / 0 .( !" F) ( ' y" 8

4 # , " 95 / 0 N * -" _ %I " H* ) # J

2 = . # ( ' y" 8 Wit’s ) 91 / 0 ( IMPA ) 92 / 0 ( U1-L1

) 91 / 0 ( ) U1-SN

) 94 / 0 ( % Wit’s ) U1-L1

!" # $% $ . .. ) $ ( )(* + ( ( = . " H* 4 " H* Q %J ( ' y" 8

3 ' & Q 2 % . E 9 ' = ) b%

% . ) 1 : * R 6 4 ( C*

) ( ' y" 8 # ,

' F) ) N \% !" )

# , ' 4 ( *

C* R 6

%* N !

t

) ( ' y" 8

SNA_A 10 / 81 689 / 3 010 / 0 * 988 / 0 SNA_D 80 / 80 800 / 3 SNB_A 67 / 76 497 / 3 083 / 0 985 / 0 SNB_D 47 / 76 491 / 3 ANB_A 43 / 4 528 / 2 448 / 0 962 / 0 ANB_D 33 / 4 604 / 2 SN- GoGn_A 43 / 32 056 / 5 71 / 0 945 / 0 SN- GoGn_D 87 / 31 883 / 4 SN_SGn_A 47 / 69 175 / 4 096 / 0 933 / 0 SN_SGn_D 30 / 69 316 / 4 JAR_A % 93 / 64 965 / 3 227 / 0 975 / 0 JAR_D % 13 / 65 776 / 3 U1_SN_A 97 / 103 223 / 8 821 / 0 981 / 0 U1_SN_D 03 / 104 933 / 7 U1_L1_A 97 / 123 272 / 11 003 / 0 * 923 / 0 U1_L1_D 33 / 121 880 / 10 IMPA_A 17 / 101 518 / 8 059 / 0 981 / 0 IMPA_D 57 / 100 581 / 8 WIT’S_A mm 93 / 0 930 / 3 000 / 0 * 967 / 0 WIT’S_D mm 80 / 1 899 / 3

"%0 1 :

D* l " % 1+

4

!"

# $% $ . ..

) $ ( )(*

+ (

(

"%0 2 :

= ! l " % 1+

4 N ") # ' r * #

# , = .

"%0 3 :

= ! l " % 1+

J # ' r * N 4 # ,

!"

# $% $ . ..

) $ ( )(*

+ (

(

) 2 :

1 N % . # J

y" 8

( ' ₎ t %* N ! _{C* R 6 4 ( * '# ,}

959 / 0

0/610 3/461 81/13 SNA_A

3 /

423 81/00 ESNA_A

967 /

0 0/207 0/761 81/00 SNA_D

811 /

3 80/67 ESNA_D

987 /

0 0/670 3/563 76/47 SNB_A

681 /

3 76/53 ESNB_A

974 /

0 *0/048 3/923 76/47 SNB_D

645 /

3 76/00 ESNB_D

934 /

0 0/384 2/410 4/67 ANB_A

295 /

2 4/47 EANB_A

972 /

0 0/670 2/356 4/53 ANB_D

501 /

0 4/60 EANB_D

979 /

0 0/634 5/127 33/00 SN_GoGn_A

125 /

5 33/13 ESN_GoGn_A

982 /

0 *0/023 4/769 31/80 SN_GoGn_D

837 /

4 32/40 ESN_GoGn_D

961 /

0 0/150 4/158 70/00 SN_SGn_A

681 /

3 70/47 ESN_SGn_A

973 /

0 0/207 4/220 69/67 SN_SGn_D

982 /

3 70/00 ESN_SGn_D

960 /

0 0/698 4/443 64/80% JAR_A

885 /

3 64/67% EJAR_A

967 /

0 0/110 4/086 65/13% JAR_D

152 /

4 64/67% EJAR_D

968 /

0 0/143 7/296 103/67 U1_SN_A

995 /

6 102/93 EU1_SN_A

945 /

0 0/571 6/638 103/93 U1_SN_D

724 /

6 104/27 EU1_SN_D

978 /

0 0/272 8/697 121/07 U1_L1_A

288 /

8 120/53 EU1_L1_A

910 /

0 0/536 8/806 119/13 U1_L1_D

374 /

8 118/53 EU1_L1_D

958 /

0 0/510 7/782 103/13 IMPA_A

943 /

6 102/73 EIMPA_A

921 / 0

0/395 7/548 102/40 IMPA_D

015 /

7 103/07 EIMPA_D

926 /

0 0/849 3/402 _1/00mm _{WIT’S_A}

515 /

3 1/07mm EWIT’S_A

915 /

0 0/271 3/312 1/40mm WIT’S_D

256 /

3 1/80mm EWIT’S_D

:;<

- & Sandwich ! K -" L

* ,

F) #

L + 8 D *

/Q + D" ) , \% N

Rc !"

* K" 1+ C= K 4 _ ) '

.

-" 1 /Q + - & 4" 2 C= ‚ *

* %= . 2 N " # + 6 :

* & %= #

<[3* - & 4"

/Q + M % = Q + C= H* "N % 4" % * {8 ) ) b% + ,%" % # % ") 0 b%QJ* % = +

*N % ) X 4" &= " , <[3*

. ) 9 (

) z ' 2

' 3* * %= C J*

G" I " H* i"

t-test Paired !" F) ) 4

9) )

' # # *N # L % D 2 SNA

U1-L1

) Wit’s 3 * ' . = !" 9S&3*

") < [3 SNA

* 4 C % D&3* %

JH C2%* A

Q e I -" JH 4"

M * - *% # ' g <[3*

' 3* /Q + #) %6* "%0 -" 9 %: yQ~ ) * %= . ) 10 ) 9 ) 1 (

C2%* 4 C 9S&3* %* . # C * 9 = 1, ' r ) " 5 # 9

# , ' ") # #

L N

F) 4 '

w 9? H* #

) 12 ) 11 ) 9 ) 2 (

1 * !C 4" 4 # " 9)

") U1-L1

/" . !" ) F) .

4 C

G 2 C2%* `&.N

# " 5 3" ? -+

) 4 " . D&3*

. g # ,

Wit’s = !" 9S&3*

* JH ) %Q 4Q. C2%* 4 C [ % A

%Q {J ") 0 '

Q #

R ,%" ƒC + /' #) " ,) 9 %: '

" * D&3* 4Q. 4" G 2 C2%* 4 C %=

* . ) 10 ) 9 (

N 1 J ) ) ( ' y" 8 3

(

"? ( ' % C* + ,%" # , ' C* 4" 3 = & #

) 4 C % . # ,

' G 2 %J

/Q + ' # E * ) = Q&3* % C* '

%L

% " = D 2 .

_ " ") 0

* _ Q 2 %

E * C2%*

' K . .

C* 4"

K' ) %L y = L ") 0 #? E * ) g H 4 C = '

* , .

% # ' ( ' y" 8 !" # 91

/ 0 #

U1-L1

) Wit’s *N

C* %

# )

% ' # \% N %* L ( ' y" 8

Wit’s ) 92 / 0 ( /3p

%* % ,

U1-L1

y" 8 4" C*

3 " H* 4" % ? '

%* J 1 * % Wit’s

F) ) '

* 8 !" B% " H* ) = J y"

3 .

3 %( " 9 _SI *

9S&3* '

E * & Q 2 '

B% t %I # ,

) )

") y '

M ) '

# ' #

‚ * ( = g% * - & & " .

) 13 ) 9 (

f?%: # ,

Wit’s ,) "%0 !" Q_

%Q e%J '

4 C &= !" y

-p% GQJ* H* Q_ 4 z ' ) %Q 4Q. G 2 N N 5 4 RS

!" # $% $ . .. ) $ ( )(* + ( ( w * f?% C* H 3

# , ' #

J p # *% * , . ) 10 ) 9 (

M % = ! C J* Santoro

& ' ) )

9 (

* G H6 # 3 L 3* 9 C J* " ) 1+

4 9

= N ! #

4" = F 1, RS ) 3* i" %* y" 8 Wit’s

!" - & ) 81 / 0 ( ) + ,%" \% N ) 82 / 0 ( % .

! 5 6 # " %I E * " = % . * F) 4& * = / = = ' . ) 9 ) 1 (

# " ) # U1-L1

IMPA, )

U1-SN

# " )

g% * '

* /' = * & Q 2 Q_ %

C8 f g% * 9S&3* - & ) ' L N x

4 C [ C2%*

' 4 " . ) ? -+ # " 5 #

. & Q 2 * 9 _SI # , ' # / = # , ' 9 C J* " *N #

/Q + % 2 D 2 %

' = + , #

Double film exposure C= {J K" 1+ )

G" 0 * . ) 15 ) 14 ) 11 (

, p , *

JH & Q 2 %= A x C8 * = ) 9 ( # , ") SNA 9S&3* * Q 2

& = % ) # " )

96 / 0

) B%

987 / 0

!" B% .(

E * C2%* 9 +S '

= #

9 +S " € (" ' 4& * y C J* p , ' K" 1+ . & "

E * ‚ 9 _SI '

„ ) #

* '

" L ! # # * & Q 9 _SI f ) 8 / /' + . ) 13 ) 9 ) 1 (

4 + , X # ,

' C J* !" #

" 8 Q %I & Q 2 " H* L % K[

Wit’s ) U1-L1

= X S* D 2 RS

B% Wit’s

) ANB '

RS % "

# *N 3 # " .

3 * i" *

& ) _ Q 2 ' # "c. # , ' 1 * + ,%" ' # % C* K" ") 0

(3" )

1+ /

) Q 2 9 C J* „ ( L . €* # Greelen ) 15 ( 3 F) !" % C*

) #) K" ") 0 (3" M % PSP L = (

a ' )

' " H* = u p #

E * C2%* RS 4" 3 '

. !" B%

= . 4 z ' Chen

) 14 ( E * C2%* # , '

# 10

Q ) = 4& !" ) % C* /Q + 7

% .

xQ [* Trace # J ) " H* % =

# 3 E * & Q 2

' K" ") 0

#) = (3"

) / F 1, !" .

L N

E Q F) ) 4 RS %p + , ! ) * C J* G" 0 (

' # 9 +S

" . & Q .

E * C2%* 4 C J \ 1 ‚ * -" ' ") 0 . ) 1 ( 1+ % L " % 4

G 2 4 C # …%0[ ") 0 E *

' + #

.

G H6 w Gleelen

"%0

\% N ` ) . %6 ) C= $%a 1 * 5 6

") 0 * = . ) 15 (

' !" ") 0 9 „1 4 + (

* + JPEG D 2 5 ") 0 0 [3 #)

L % .

4& # ") 0 L

+ ,%" ' % C* # *

5 6 "N

!" # /L* C * % ' ) + ,%" + , X J *

%= . %I ") 0 * G H6

* = DH * % a* # + 9 6 : / H )

3 !" ") 0 L L % C* B% * %* F) 4" \ 1 4 *

=

4& * D2 ") 0 H J 1 * ) * C J* L )

# F) 4" N

= G H6

Santoro & ' )

) 9 ( * =

) % * i" 3* 1 N i" 1+

4 L N %*

9 % .

' * R ,%"

' ) !" #

/ *1 ' %I % C* PSP

*N

L 3* i" „

* ' .

+ ,%" B% ) * ( ' \% N

L !" )

F) = Sandwich

" H* /' *

4 9) %=

4 ( * ' # ,

' ? 9 1

) )

mm : " (

• € # ,

E * ' D&3* 3 C2%* 4 C " .

% C* F) " H* (Conventional)

9 r

# 3 # ,

' " = !" -" *% #

9) p ' = '

%p % /L* & Q ^ 6

" H* yQ~ # SE

) 6* % . 1

)

4 ( * 4 9) ) 2

' D2 .

F) 4" Digital

% C* F) '

* %

, 2 %* _ D 2 ) 4† J* %I .

) 6* g% * " %+ & " )S_ j") F) "1* C2%* # ' J '

# (" "

9% 5 ) %Ls D * Rc ) C= K' D* = t " = %* ) ") 0 N % L ) F . )

(Enhancement) N 6* ) % a*

# , '

1+ /

F)

) * Conventional .

5=+

H* , "% Q % "

3')‡. 6* ) C*

(3 _ Q &=1. % =

D ) y"%0 "

G H6 4" * 3')‡. e I

* # 1( a "

.

>< ?

1. Jacobson A, Jacobson RL. Radiographic Cephalometry From Basic to 3-d imaging. 2nd ed. London: Quintessence Publishing; 2006. P. 53-63.

2. Lim KF, Foong KW. Phosphor-stimulated computed cephalometry: Reliability of landmark identification. Br J Orthod 1997; 24(4): 301-8.

3. Hagemann K, Vollmer D, Niegel T, Ehmer U, Reuter I. Prospective study on the reproducibility of cephalometic landmarks on conventional and digital lateral head films. J Orofac Orthop 2000; 61(2): 91-9. 4. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF, Chen KC. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus

computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod 2000; 70(5): 387-92.

!"

# $% $ . ..

) $ ( )(*

+ (

(

6. Ongkosuwito EM, Katsaros C, van 't Hof MA, Bodegom JC, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: A comparison of analogue and digital methods. Eur J Orthod 2002; 24(6): 655-65.

7. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yao JC, Chang HF. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod 2004; 74(2): 155-61. 8. Bruntz LQ, Palomo JM, Baden S, Hans MG. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding

original radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130(3): 340-8.

9. Santoro M, Jarjoura K, Cangialosi TJ. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurementsassessed with the sandwich technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129(3): 345-51.

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): 105-8.

11. Gravely JF, Benzies PM. The clinical significance of tracing error in cephalometry. Br J Orthod 1974; 1(3): 95-101.

12. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod 1971; 60(5): 505-17.

13. Proffit WR, Fields Jr HW. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed. Missouri: Mosby Co; 2007. P. 170,40.

14. Chen YJ, Cheng SK, Chang HF. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod 2004; 74(2): 155-61.