Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J C Bodegom

Publications and source records attributed to J C Bodegom.

3 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

[Digital cephalometrics].

There are different methods to produce digital head films and all have advantages and disadvantages. With a digital head film and a computer programme for digital cephalometry an analysis can be performed easily. All existing computer programmes for digital cephalometry use reference values to compare with the patient's values. However, the magnification factors of the two data sets, which are compared, must be known and correction to the same magnification must be possible within the programme. Furthermore, the reference values should be age, gender, and population related. Many commercially available programmes do not fulfil these criteria. A well-designed programme for digital cephalometry should have the possibility to calculate age and gender-related reference values based on values of the target population. Furthermore it should have the possibility to analyse several longitudinal head films at the same time and to present the data graphically. A national survey among Dutch orthodontists by the end of 2000 demonstrated that 35% of Dutch orthodontists used digital cephalometry in their office. The most commonly used analysis was the Steiner-Tweed analysis, which was performed by nearly 60% of the orthodontists.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2002

The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of analogue and digital methods.

The aim of this study was to compare the reproducibility of longitudinal cephalometric measurements between analogue and digital methods using two different resolutions. Cephalometric radiographs of 20 patients were selected at the start (T1) and end (T2) of treatment: 24 cephalometric variables were calculated at T1 and T2, and their increments (T2 - T1) were also evaluated. All measurements were performed twice by two observers. Quality of methods [analogue, digital: 300 and 600 dots per inch (DPI) resolution] was evaluated by comparing the reliability coefficients and the total error between the digital and analogue methods. The inter-observer agreement was good. The 300 DPI was comparable to the analogue method. The reproducibility for the variables was comparable, but mandibular incisor increments tended to show better results with the 300 DPI method, whereas skeletal jaw relationship increments were not reliable with either method. Maxillary incisor increments, however, were reliable with both methods. The 300 and 600 DPI resolutions were found to be comparable. Scanning of cephalometric radiographs at a resolution of 300 DPI is sufficient for clinical purposes and comparable to analogue cephalometrics. However, all methods were found to be poor in assessing skeletal jaw relationships longitudinally.

Cephalometry↗