Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Orthodontics, ITS Dental College, Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad, India

2 Dental Department, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Delhi, India

3 Department of Orthodontics, Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College and Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, India

4 Department of Orthodontics, Christian Dental College, CMC, Ludhiana, Punjab, India


Aim: The study aimed at determining the variability of landmark identifications and its reproducibility by manual and digital methods of cephalometric tracing.
Methods: Pre-treatment cephalograms of sixty subjects recommended for orthodontic treatment were taken in the natural head position with the teeth in maximum intercuspation and were traced by a single operator. Statistical analysis was performed, and the mean, standard deviations, and coefficients of variation were calculated for each parameter and imaging modality. For all the variables, the Shapiro-Wilk’s test for normality was conducted to identify the distribution of each variable. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used where distribution was non-normal for at least one of the comparing variables and the repeated sample t-test was used where normal distribution was detected for both the variables.
Results: For digital tracing, the coefficients of variation were less than 1, suggesting high reliability. For most manually traced images, the landmarks with high coefficients of variation were Porion, Basion, Sella, Point B, and Gonion. Coefficients of variation were invariably higher for the manual method than the digital method, implying readings were more consistent in the digital method for the above landmarks under observation. Out of the 29 parameters, the mean difference of sixteen of them was calculated to be statistically significant with each other, which shows that the digital method of cephalometric tracing can be relied upon for the reliability.
Conclusion: The digital method of landmark identification gives a more consistent reading.


Main Subjects

  1. Hofrath, H. Die bedeutung der roentgenfern der kiefer anomalien. Fortschr Orthodontic1931; 1: 232- 248.
  2. Broadbent BH. A new X-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod. 1931;1(2):45- 66. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1931)001<0045:ANXTAI> 2.0.CO;2.
  3. Sandler PJ. Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements. Br J Orthod. 1988; 15(2):105–10. doi: 10.1179/bjo.15.2.105. PMID: 3165025.
  4. Geelan W, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen, E, Kruger M, Hansson LG. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional film, hardcopy, and monitor-displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(3):331– 40. doi: 10.1093/ejo/ 20.3.331. PMID: 9699411.
  5. Gregston MD, Kula T, Hardman P, Glaros A, Kula K. A Comparison of conventional and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software: I. Hard tissue. Sem in Orthod. 2004;10(3):204–11. doi: 10.1053/j.sodo.2004.05.004.
  6. Santoro M, Jarjoura K, Cangialosi TJ. Accuracy of digital and analog cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. Am J Orthod Dentfacial Orthop. 2006;129(3):345–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.010. PMID: 16527629.
  7. Raju NS, Prasad KG, Jayade VP. A modified approach for obtaining cephalograms in the natural head position. J Orthod. 2001;28(1):25-8. doi: 10.1093/ ortho/28.1.25. PMID: 11254800.
  8. Houston WJ. The application of computer aided digital analysis to orthodontic records. Eur J Orthod. 1979;1(2):71-9. doi: 10.1093/ejo/1.2.71.
  9. Macrì V, Wenzel A. Reliability of landmark recording on film and digital lateral cephalograms. Eur J Orthod. 1993;15(2):137-48. doi: 10.1093/ejo/15.2.137. PMID: 8500539.
  10. Richardson A. A comparison of traditional and computerized methods of cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod. 1981;3(1):15-20. doi: 10.1093/ejo/ 3.1.15. PMID: 6939591.
  11. Rudolph DJ, Sinclair PM, Coggins JM. Automatic computerized radiographic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113(2):173-9. doi: 10.1016/s0889- 5406(98)70289-6. PMID: 9484208.
  12. Scott R. McClure P, Lionel Sadowsky, AF, Alex J. Reliability of digital versus conventional cephalometric radiology: a comparative evaluation of landmark identification error. Sem in Orthod. 2005;11:98–110.
  13. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chan HF, Chen KC. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computeraided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2000;70(5): 387–92. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2000)070< 0387: COLIIT>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 11036999.
  14. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yao JC, Chang HF. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(2): 155–61. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0155: TEODIL> 2.0.CO;2. PMID: 15132440.
  15. Trpkova B, MajorPrasad P, Nebbe B. Cephalometric Landmarks identification and reproducibility: a meta analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 112(2): 535-40. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70242- 7. PMID: 9267228.
  16. Broch J, Slagsvold O, Rosler M. Errors in landmark identification in lateral radiographic plates. Eur J Orthod. 1981;3(1):9-13. doi: 10.1093/ejo/3.1.9.
  17. Stabrun AE, Danielsen K. Precision in cephalometric landmark identification. EurJ Orthod. 1982;4(3):185- 96. doi: 10.1093/ejo/4.3.185. PMID: 6957301.
  18. Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun T. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracing. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29(1):105-8. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjl065. PMID: 17290023.
  19. Kublashvili T, Kula K, Glaros A, Hardman P, Kula T. A comparison of conventinal and digital radiographic methods and cephalometric analysis software: II. Soft tissue. Semin Orthod. 2004;10(3):212–9. doi: 10.1053/j.sodo.2004.05.005.
  20. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod. 1971;60(2):111–27. doi: 10.1016/0002- 9416(71)90028-5. PMID: 5283996.
  21. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod. 1971;60(5):505–17. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(71)90116-3. PMID: 528667.
  22. Oliver RG. Cephalometric analysis comparing five different methods. Br J Orthod. 1991;18(4):277-83. doi: 10.1179/bjo.18.4.277. PMID: 1782186.
  23. Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiography, part 1: advantages and limitations of digital imaging. Angle Orthod. 1996;66(1): 37–42. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1996)066<0037: DIOCRP>2.3.CO;2. PMID: 8678344.
  24. Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S, Roberts CT. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs, part 2: image quality. Angle Orthod. 1996;66(1):43–50. doi: 10.1043/ 0003-3219(1996)066<0043:DIOCRP>2.3.CO;2. PMID: 8678345.