Comparative Evaluation of Digital Cephalometric Tracing Applications on Mobile Devices and Manual Tracing
Mosab Mohammed Hassan,Wafa Hadi Alfaifi,Abdullah Mohammed Qaysi,Asma Ali Alfaifi,Zainab Murtadha AlGhafli,Khurshid Ahmed Mattoo,Shahad Mohammed Daghriri,Lamis Mohammed Hawthan,Reham Mousa Daghriri,Alkhansa Ahmed Moafa,Mohammed M Al Moaleem
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.944628
2024-06-23
Abstract:BACKGROUND Cephalometric radiography evaluates facial skeleton development and aids in diagnosis and treatment phases (pre and post) in orthodontics. This study aimed to compare digital cephalometric tracing using a smartphone application (App), a tablet-based platform, and manual tracing in 30 orthodontic patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty orthodontic pretreatment, criteria based, lateral cephalometric radiographs were analyzed/grouped for Steiner analysis parameters (5 skeletal, 3 dentals, 1 soft tissue) by 3 tracing methods [manual - group (Gp M), smartphone (Android - OS9) - Gp S, tablet (Apple - IOS13) - Gp T) after mandatory standardization/calibration. Measurements include 5 angular (SNA, SNB, ANB, SNMPA, SNOP), 3 linear U1NA, L1NB, U1L1, and 1 soft tissue (S line) (millimeters and degrees). Inter-examiner rating was determined using Dahlberg's test. After normality distribution testing (Shapiro-Wilk), data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for group differences. Homogeneity of variance was verified using the Levene test. Differences were determined on probability value of (p≤0.05). RESULTS The results showed that Steiner's analysis parameters were similar in all groups with homogenous variances. Highest differences in mean values were found for L1NB, U1L1, and S line measurement, with higher values being observed in Gp S tracings. However, these differences were not statistically significant (p≤0.05). All parameters, irrespective of being measured in either degrees or millimeters, had means comparable to each other. CONCLUSIONS Smartphone and tablet-based applications produced tracings that were comparable and reliable when compared to conventional manual tracings. Standardization of images, processing, printing, and calibration of devices is important to achieve good results.