Assessment of Reliability of Three Different Computer-Assisted Analysis Programs

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridAKSAKALLI, Sertaç/0000-0002-1916-8108
dc.authorwosidAKSAKALLI, Sertaç/HKN-8458-2023
dc.contributor.authorToy, Ebubekir
dc.contributor.authorMalkoc, Siddik
dc.contributor.authorAltindis, Sedat
dc.contributor.authorAksakalli, Sertac
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-04T20:57:12Z
dc.date.available2024-08-04T20:57:12Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentİnönü Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of cephalometric analysis using 3 different digital analysis programs. Methods: For this study, a dry human skull with the entire mandible, maxilla, and teeth was used. Fifteen lateral and 15 posteroanterior cephalometric digital images were taken by rotating the skull from 08 to 6148 at 28 intervals to obtain different images. Two researchers located the landmarks on the digital images independently using 3 computer-assisted analysis programs, Dolphin Image Software (Dolphin Imaging and Management Solutions), Quick Ceph Image (Quick Ceph Systems Inc), and Vistadent OC (GAC Int Inc). Following the first measurements (T1), all landmarks were relocated within a 2-week interval (T2) by each examiner. A paired and the independent Student t tests were used for intraexaminer and interexaminer measurements, and Pearson correlations were obtained. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to determine intraexaminer repeatability. Results: For the repeated measurements, mean differences were statistically insignificant, and high correlations for the repeated measurements were found, and the intraexaminer correlations were significant for each examiner (p <.001). When the interexaminer correlations of 3 analyses were compared, interexaminer correlations showed high consistency and the lowest Pearson r value was the same angular measurement (S ant-n-ss) (p <.001). ICC values demonstrated high intraexaminer repeatability. The highest value of ICC was the mandibular body length (go-me) for both examiners (p <.001). Conclusion: The 3 tested analysis programs may be accepted as reliable for clinical use.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.13076/TJO-D-13-00013
dc.identifier.endpage142en_US
dc.identifier.issn2528-9659
dc.identifier.issn2148-9505
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage134en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.13076/TJO-D-13-00013
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11616/102419
dc.identifier.volume26en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000439296300004en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/Aen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherAves Press Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofTurkish Journal of Orthodonticsen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectComputer-assisted analysisen_US
dc.subjectDigital imagesen_US
dc.subjectReliabilityen_US
dc.subjectRepeatabilityen_US
dc.titleAssessment of Reliability of Three Different Computer-Assisted Analysis Programsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu