SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.63 número4Microdureza e resistência à flexão de duas resinas de base de prótese impressas em 3DMedidas de sustentabilidade ambiental nas clínicas dentárias Portuguesas índice de autoresíndice de assuntosPesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Journal

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Não possue artigos similaresSimilares em SciELO

Compartilhar


Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia, Medicina Dentária e Cirurgia Maxilofacial

versão impressa ISSN 1646-2890versão On-line ISSN 1647-6700

Resumo

AMORIM, Mónica; DIAMANTINO, Fernanda; PEREIRA, Rui  e  JARDIM, Luís. Smartphone and computer cephalometric analysis: A trueness and precision study. Rev Port Estomatol Med Dent Cir Maxilofac [online]. 2022, vol.63, n.4, pp.204-212.  Epub 30-Dez-2022. ISSN 1646-2890.  https://doi.org/10.24873/j.rpemd.2022.12.1044.

Objectives:

Performing digital cephalometric analysis on apps is a convenient feature of handheld devices. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of the OneCeph cephalometric tracing app on a smartphone and computer.

Methods:

34 lateral cephalograms were traced in two sessions using three methods: OneCeph on a smartphone, OneCeph on a computer, and NemoCeph on a computer as the reference. For trueness analysis, the measurements were compared between each test method and the reference. For precision analysis, the measurements were compared between sessions.

Results:

Regarding trueness analysis, significant differences were found between OneCeph and NemoCeph for ANB (smartphone, -0.3±0.68; computer, -0.3±0.52), OL/SN (smartphone, -1.1±2.68; computer -2.0±2.98), and GoGn/SN (smartphone, -0.5±1.27; computer, -0.8±1.56). OneCeph reproducibility was high for all cephalometric variables except OL/SN, both on the smartphone and the computer (ICC [95%CI]: 0.888 [0.773-0.944] and 0.842 [0.583-0.931], respectively). Repeatability was high for all cephalometric variables except OL/SN and UINA on the smartphone (ICC [95%CI]: 0.889 [0.730-0.950] and 0.831 [0.687-0.912], respectively). Tracing time was significantly higher for both OneCeph methods.

Conclusions:

OneCeph demonstrated adequate accuracy and efficiency on both interfaces. Clinical judgment is advised when interpreting the measurement output of handheld devices, which may provide a higher frequency of gross landmark identification errors.

Palavras-chave : Accuracy; Apps; Cephalometry; Smartphone.

        · resumo em Português     · texto em Inglês     · Inglês ( pdf )