ABSTRACT
Cephalometry is used to quantify and qualify the type of malocclusion. The digital technology has overcome the limitations of manual method. A high cost of the commercially available software is unaffordable for its wide spread use. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the values of Steiner’s cephalometric analysis using Nemoceph and Foxit PDF reader. No significant difference between the two methods will result in that Foxit PDF reader can be used as an cost effective alternative. Methods: This study was conducted on 100 digital lateral cephalogram taken from the same machine. The samples were collected by non-probability convenience sampling procedures. These images were analyzed for Steiner’s Cephalometric Analysis using the two software. Results: The skeletal and dental values showed no statistical significant difference in the majority, except for the L1-NA (Linear) and L1-NB (Linear). Conclusion: Results showed that there is a high agreement between the two methods.
ABSTRACT
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, requires a cautious acquisition and interpretation of a large amount of information to achieve a correct diagnosis and treatment planning. Manual techniques are time consuming and tedious. The digital technology is advantageous but the affordability remains obstacle. Objectives: The main aim of this study was to compare the linear and angular measures between the two methods, Ceph Ninja and Nemoceph. No significant difference between the two methods will result in that Ceph Ninja can be used as an alternative. Methods: This study was conducted on 100 digital lateral cephalogram taken from the same machine. The samples were collected by non-probability convenience sampling procedures. These images were analyzed for Steiner’s Cephalometric Analysis using the two software. Results: The results of this study showed the skeletal and dental values had no statistical significant difference in the majority, except for the linear values of Lower Incisor and Upper Incisor with N-A and N-B respectively. Conclusion: It seems that the two software can be used interchangeably with high confidence.