Suppr超能文献

使用两种输入设备(鼠标驱动光标与手写笔)进行头影测量分析时标志点定位过程的可重复性和速度。

Reproducibility and speed of landmarking process in cephalometric analysis using two input devices: mouse-driven cursor versus pen.

作者信息

Cutrera Alice, Barbato Ersilia, Maiorana Francesco, Giordano Daniela, Leonardi Rosalia

机构信息

Department of Orthodontics, University of Catania, Italy.

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, School of Dentistry, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Italy.

出版信息

Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2015 Jul 28;6(2):47-52. eCollection 2015 Apr-Jun.

Abstract

AIMS

To define if the new portable appliances, like smartphone, iPad, small laptop and tablet can be used in cephalometric tracing without dropping out the validity of any measurement.

METHODS

We investigated and compared the reproducibility and the speed of landmarks identification process on lateral X-rays in two input devices: a mouse-driven cursor and a pen used as input means in mobile devices. One expert located 22 landmarks on 15 lateral X-rays in a repeated measure design two times, at time T1 and T2, after at least one month. The Intraclass Correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the reproducibility for each landmark tracing and the agreement between the value derived from both input devices. Also, the mean errors in measurements, the standard deviation and the Friedman Test significans (P < 0.05) between both input were statistically evaluated.

RESULTS

All landmarks had a high agreement and the Friedman Test indicated statistically significant differences (P<0.05) for the identification of Na, Po, Pt, PNS, Ba, Pg, Gn, UIE, UIA, APOcc and PPOcc landmarks.

CONCLUSIONS

Even if the mouse input give higher agreement for landmark tracing the differences are really minimal and they can be ignored in private practice. We suggest the adequacy of pen input in clinical setting.

摘要

目的

确定新型便携式设备,如智能手机、iPad、小型笔记本电脑和平板电脑,是否可用于头影测量追踪而不影响任何测量的有效性。

方法

我们研究并比较了两种输入设备在侧位X射线上识别标志点的可重复性和速度:一种是鼠标驱动的光标,另一种是移动设备中用作输入工具的笔。一名专家在重复测量设计中,于至少一个月后的T1和T2两个时间点,在15张侧位X射线上定位22个标志点。组内相关系数用于评估每个标志点追踪的可重复性以及两种输入设备得出的值之间的一致性。此外,还对两种输入之间的测量平均误差、标准差和Friedman检验显著性(P<0.05)进行了统计学评估。

结果

所有标志点都具有高度一致性,Friedman检验表明,在识别Na、Po、Pt、PNS、Ba、Pg、Gn、UIE、UIA、APOcc和PPOcc标志点方面存在统计学显著差异(P<0.05)。

结论

即使鼠标输入在标志点追踪方面具有更高的一致性,但差异实际上非常小,在私人诊所中可以忽略不计。我们建议在临床环境中笔输入是足够的。

相似文献

2
Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric analysis.
Angle Orthod. 2014 May;84(3):437-42. doi: 10.2319/061513-451.1. Epub 2013 Oct 25.
3
Cephalometric landmark variability among orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists: a comparative study.
Imaging Sci Dent. 2015 Dec;45(4):213-20. doi: 10.5624/isd.2015.45.4.213. Epub 2015 Dec 17.
4
An evaluation of cellular neural networks for the automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks on digital images.
J Biomed Biotechnol. 2009;2009:717102. doi: 10.1155/2009/717102. Epub 2009 Sep 10.
5
Accuracy of cephalometric landmarks on monitor-displayed radiographs with and without image emboss enhancement.
Eur J Orthod. 2010 Jun;32(3):242-7. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjp122. Epub 2009 Dec 18.
7
Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry.
Angle Orthod. 2000 Oct;70(5):387-92. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2000)070<0387:COLIIT>2.0.CO;2.
8
The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry.
Angle Orthod. 2004 Apr;74(2):155-61. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0155:TEODIL>2.0.CO;2.
9
Is there consistency in cephalometric landmark identification amongst oral and maxillofacial surgeons?
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Apr;43(4):445-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.08.007. Epub 2013 Sep 19.

引用本文的文献

2
Comparative Evaluation of Conventional and OnyxCeph™ Dental Software Measurements on Cephalometric Radiography.
Turk J Orthod. 2019 Jun;32(2):87-95. doi: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2019.18038. Epub 2019 Jun 1.

本文引用的文献

1
Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric analysis.
Angle Orthod. 2014 May;84(3):437-42. doi: 10.2319/061513-451.1. Epub 2013 Oct 25.
2
Accuracy of landmark identification on postero-anterior cephalograms.
Prog Orthod. 2012 Sep;13(2):132-40. doi: 10.1016/j.pio.2011.10.003. Epub 2012 Feb 10.
4
Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs.
Eur J Orthod. 2012 Jun;34(3):318-21. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr008. Epub 2011 Apr 18.
6
Accuracy of cephalometric landmarks on monitor-displayed radiographs with and without image emboss enhancement.
Eur J Orthod. 2010 Jun;32(3):242-7. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjp122. Epub 2009 Dec 18.
7
An evaluation of cellular neural networks for the automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks on digital images.
J Biomed Biotechnol. 2009;2009:717102. doi: 10.1155/2009/717102. Epub 2009 Sep 10.
8
Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods.
Eur J Orthod. 2009 Jun;31(3):254-9. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn121. Epub 2009 Apr 6.
9
Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis.
Eur J Orthod. 2009 Jun;31(3):241-6. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn105. Epub 2009 Feb 23.
10
Interactive online program to improve cephalometric tracing skills.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Aug;126(2):256-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.09.030.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验