Abstract
Various modes of digital cephalometric imaging and cephalometric analysis software are commercially available. This study compared the reliability and dispersion of 10 angular and 5 linear cephalometric parameters (primarily hard tissue) of conventional images, scanned conventional images, and storage phosphor images (DenOptix) measured by using manual tracings and 3 software programs (Dolphin Imaging v. 6.7, Vistadent v. 7.33, and Vistadent v. 8.01). The reliability of each method was considered clinically acceptable. Although there were statistically significant differences in the means of numerous parameters between manual tracing and other modes of images and analyses, the differences did not appear to be clinically meaningful.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
