Chuchra Alisha, Gupta Kimmi, Arora Reetu, Bindra Shweta, Hingad Nupur, Babbar Amit
Orthodontics, Adesh Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Bathinda, IND.
Prosthodontics, Adesh Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Bathinda, IND.
Cureus. 2024 Nov 3;16(11):e72948. doi: 10.7759/cureus.72948. eCollection 2024 Nov.
Background Cephalometric analysis is essential in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. With the emergence of digital tools for cephalometric analysis such as OneCeph, WebCeph, and NemoCeph, there is growing interest in their reliability compared to traditional manual tracings. This study aimed to compare the reliability of these digital tools with manual tracings in doing cephalometric analysis. Methodology Cephalometric radiographs from a diverse patient population were analyzed using OneCeph (NXS, Hyderabad, India), WebCeph (AssembleCircle Corp., Republic of Korea), NemoCeph (Nemotec, Madrid, Spain), and manual tracings by experienced orthodontists. Interobserver reliability and agreement with manual tracings were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results The comparison of cephalometric measurements using the four methods - manual, OneCeph, WebCeph, and NemoCeph - revealed significant differences in the Sella-Nasion to Point A angle (SNA) (P = 0.002) and angle of difference between Sella-Nasion to Point A angle and Sella-Nasion to Point B angle (ANB) (P<0.001). Specifically, WebCeph produced significantly higher SNA measurements than manual tracing, while NemoCeph, OneCeph, and WebCeph yielded higher ANB measurements than manual tracing. There were no significant differences in other measurements, including Sella-Nasion to Point B angle (SNB), Nasion to Point A (N to Pt A), Nasion to Point B (N to Pt B), Gonion-Gnathion to Sella-Nasion angle (Go-Gn to SN), Lower Anterior Facial Height (LAFH), Y-axis (growth axis angle), facial axis, the sum of posterior measurements, and various angular and linear distances [1 to NA, 1 to SN, 1 to NB, 1 to Apog, Incisor Mandibular Plane Angle (IMPA), Sella to Upper Lip (S to UL), and Sella to Lower Lip (S to LL)]. The reliability analysis indicated a strong internal consistency with Cronbach's α values of 0.811 for manual vs. NemoCeph, 0.859 for manual vs. OneCeph, and 0.861 for manual vs. WebCeph, and good agreement in the ICC (P<0.001). Conclusion OneCeph, WebCeph, and NemoCeph demonstrate promising reliability for cephalometric analysis. However, the results should be interpreted with caution, considering the limitations of digital tools. Ongoing research and collaboration among developers, researchers, and clinicians are essential to validate these the performance of these tools and improve their clinical applicability.
背景
头影测量分析在正畸诊断和治疗计划中至关重要。随着诸如OneCeph、WebCeph和NemoCeph等头影测量数字工具的出现，与传统手工描记相比，人们对其可靠性的兴趣日益浓厚。本研究旨在比较这些数字工具与手工描记在进行头影测量分析时的可靠性。
方法
使用OneCeph（印度海得拉巴NXS公司）、WebCeph（韩国AssembleCircle公司）、NemoCeph（西班牙马德里Nemotec公司）以及由经验丰富的正畸医生进行手工描记，对来自不同患者群体的头影测量X线片进行分析。使用组内相关系数（ICC）评估观察者间的可靠性以及与手工描记的一致性。
结果
使用手工、OneCeph、WebCeph和NemoCeph这四种方法对头影测量值进行比较，结果显示蝶鞍 - 鼻根点至A点角（SNA）（P = 0.002）以及蝶鞍 - 鼻根点至A点角与蝶鞍 - 鼻根点至B点角之差（ANB）（P<0.001）存在显著差异。具体而言，WebCeph得出的SNA测量值显著高于手工描记，而NemoCeph、OneCeph和WebCeph得出的ANB测量值高于手工描记。在其他测量值方面，包括蝶鞍 - 鼻根点至B点角（SNB）、鼻根点至A点（N至Pt A）、鼻根点至B点（N至Pt B）、下颌角 - 颏点至蝶鞍 - 鼻根点角（Go - Gn至SN）、面下1/3高度（LAFH）、Y轴（生长轴角）、面轴、后部测量值总和以及各种角度和线性距离[1至NA, 1至SN, 1至NB, 1至Apog, 切牙下颌平面角（IMPA）、蝶鞍至上唇（S至UL）以及蝶鞍至下唇（S至LL）]，均无显著差异。可靠性分析表明，手工与NemoCeph的Cronbach's α值为0.811，手工与OneCeph的为0.859，手工与WebCeph的为0.861，具有很强的内部一致性，且ICC一致性良好（P<0.001）。
结论
OneCeph、WebCeph和NemoCeph在头影测量分析中显示出有前景的可靠性。然而，考虑到数字工具的局限性，对结果的解释应谨慎。开发者、研究者和临床医生之间持续的研究与合作对于验证这些工具的性能并提高其临床适用性至关重要。
