REPRODUCIBILITY OF CEPHALOMETRIC LANDMARKS ON CONVENTIONAL FILM, HARD-COPY, AND MONITOR-DISPLAYED IMAGES OBTAINED BY THE STORAGE PHOSPHOR TECHNIQUE

Citation
W. Geelen et al., REPRODUCIBILITY OF CEPHALOMETRIC LANDMARKS ON CONVENTIONAL FILM, HARD-COPY, AND MONITOR-DISPLAYED IMAGES OBTAINED BY THE STORAGE PHOSPHOR TECHNIQUE, European journal of orthodontics (Print), 20(3), 1998, pp. 331-340
Citations number
35
Categorie Soggetti
Dentistry,Oral Surgery & Medicine
ISSN journal
01415387
Volume
20
Issue
3
Year of publication
1998
Pages
331 - 340
Database
ISI
SICI code
0141-5387(1998)20:3<331:ROCLOC>2.0.ZU;2-M
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the reproduci bility of cephalometric landmarks on (1) conventional films, and image s acquired by storage phosphor digital radiography both on (2) hardcop y and (3) monitor-displayed versions. The material consisted of 19 cep halograms for each image modality. The phosphor plates were scanned in an image reader and the 10-bit normalized, raw data digital images we re 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, hardco py, and monitor-displayed image. For the films and hardcopies, the lan dmark co-ordinates were recorded via a digitizing tablet. For the moni tor-displayed images, the co-ordinates were recorded directly from the monitor using a dedicated Windows-based cephalometric program. Reprod ucibility was defined as an observer's deviation (in mm) from the mean between all observers. Differences between the image modalities and b etween the observers were tested by two-way analysis of variance for e ach 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 modal ity was always the best. For a full: cephalometric recording (the sum of all 21 landmarks), the monitor-displayed images (mean = 25.3 mm) ha d a lower precision than film (P < 0.005) and hard-copy (P < 0.02). Th ere was no significant difference between film (mean = 21.8 mm) and ha rdcopy (mean = 22.8 mm). The lower reproducibility seen for the monito r-displayed images is most probably of little clinical significance.