Smartphone and computer cephalometric analysis: A trueness and precision study

• Autor(a) principal: Amorim,Mónica
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: Diamantino,Fernanda, Pereira,Rui, Jardim,Luís
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1646-28902022000400204
• topic: Accuracy; Apps; Cephalometry; Smartphone

Abstract 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.