Department of Orthodontics, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Eur J Orthod. 2010 Jun;32(3):242-7. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjp122. Epub 2009 Dec 18.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of some commonly used cephalometric landmarks of monitor-displayed images with and without image emboss enhancement. The following null hypothesis was tested: there is no improvement in landmark detection accuracy between monitor-displayed images, with and without image embossing enhancement. Forty lateral cephalometric radiographs, taken from the data files of subjects were used in this study. A purpose-made software allowed recording of the cephalometric points and then, with the help of algorithms based on cellular neural networks, to transfer the previously processed radiographs into an embossed image. Five observers recorded 22 landmarks on the displayed images from the two image modalities, i.e. monitor-displayed radiograph (mode A) and monitor-displayed embossed radiograph (mode B). The positions of the landmarks were recorded and saved in the format of x and y co-ordinates and as Euclidean distance. The mean errors and standard deviation of landmarks location according to the two modalities were compared with the 'best estimate' for each landmark and the values were calculated for each of the 22 landmarks. One-way analysis of variance was then used to evaluate any statistically significant differences. Euclidean distance mean errors were higher for the embossed images (except for Po) than for the unfiltered radiographs. These differences were all statistically significant (P < 0.05) except for Or, Po, PM, Co, APOcc, and PPOcc. On the x and y co-ordinates, the accuracy of the cephalometric landmark detection improved on the embossed radiograph but only for a few points (Or on x axis and Po, PM, Co, and APOcc on y axis), as these were not statistically significant. The use of radiographic enhancement techniques, such as embossing, does not improve the level of accuracy for cephalometric points detection. Unless more precise algorithms are designed, this feature should not be used for clinical or research purposes.
本研究旨在评估监视器显示图像中常用的头影测量标志点在有和没有图像浮雕增强时的准确性。我们检验了以下零假设:在标志点检测的准确性方面,监视器显示图像与有和没有图像浮雕增强的图像之间没有改善。本研究使用了 40 张从患者数据文件中获取的侧位头颅侧位片。一个专门的软件允许记录头影测量点,然后借助基于细胞神经网络的算法,将之前处理过的射线照片转换为浮雕图像。五位观察者在两种图像模式(监视器显示射线照片(模式 A)和监视器显示浮雕射线照片(模式 B))下记录了 22 个标志点。记录标志点的位置并以 x 和 y 坐标以及欧几里得距离的形式保存。根据两种模式比较了标志点位置的平均误差和标准偏差与每个标志点的“最佳估计”,并计算了 22 个标志点中的每一个的数值。然后使用单因素方差分析评估任何具有统计学意义的差异。浮雕图像的欧几里得距离平均误差(除了 Po)高于未过滤的射线照片。除了 Or、Po、PM、Co、APOcc 和 PPOcc 之外,所有这些差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。在 x 和 y 坐标上,头影测量标志点的检测准确性在浮雕图像上有所提高,但只有少数几个点(Or 在 x 轴上,Po、PM、Co 和 APOcc 在 y 轴上),因为这些差异没有统计学意义。除非设计出更精确的算法,否则这种放射增强技术不应用于临床或研究目的。