This study compares the results of cephalometric analyses using manual and interactive computer graphics methods. Results are statistically in favour of the interactive computer system. This study provides a basis for ongoing research into alternative methods of cephalometric analyses. such as digitization and automatic landmark identification using sophisticated computer vision systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaumrindS. and FrantzR. C. (1971) The reliability of head film measurements: 1. Landmark identification, American Journal of Orthodontics60, 111–127.
2.
BrochJ., SlagsvoldO. and RosierM. (1981) Error in Landmark identification in lateral radiographic head plates, European Journal of Orthodontics, 3, 9–13.
3.
CohenA. M. (1984) Uncertainty in cephalometrics. British Journal of Orthodontics, 11, 44–48.
4.
DavisD. N. and TaylorC. J. (1989) An intelligent segmentation system for lateral skull x-ray images, AVC89, Proceedings of the Fifth Alvey Vision Conference, University of Reading, 251–255.
5.
JacksonP. H., DicksonG. C. and BirnieD. J. (1985) Digital image processing of cephalometric radiographs: A preliminary report, British Journal of Orthodontics, 12, 122–132.
6.
RichardsonA. (1981) A comparison of traditional and computerised methods of cephalometric analysis, European Journal of Orthodontics, 3, 15–20.
7.
RickettsR. M., RothR. H., ChaconasS. J., SchulofR. J. and EngelG. A. (1982) Orthodontic Diagnosis & planning, Rocky Mountain Data Systems, The United States of America.
8.
ThurowR. C. (1977) Atlas of Orthodontic Principles, 2nd edn, C. V. Mosby Co., Saint Louis.
