Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran

2 DDS, Private Practice, Tehran, Iran

3 PhD in Biostatics, Department of Social Medicine, School of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran


Aim: Cephalometric analysis is a main part of diagnostics in orthodontics. Modern cephalometric analysis methods include using digital software or mobile applications. This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the CephNinjaPro application for linear and angular cephalometric measurements.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 30 randomly selected lateral cephalograms were digitized by a digital scanner. The required landmarks for five linear and eight angular measurements were identified on all cephalograms using a fine tip pen by an experienced orthodontist, and then rescanned. To assess the validity of manual versus digital landmark identification using the CephNinjaPro application, the landmarks were identified on scanned cephalograms in both the CephNinjaPro application and Dolphin software. The results were compared before and after landmark identification. The results of the Dolphin software and the CephNinjaPro application were also compared before and after landmark identification. Data were analyzed using the paired t-test and Wilcoxon test.
Results: The results showed significant differences in the angles SNA (P<0.001), SNB (P<0.001), inter-incisal (P=0.001), and MP-SN (P<0.001), and the Ga (P<0.001) between the Dolphin software and CephNinjaPro application before landmark identification. Also, significant differences were observed in the Ga (P<0.001) and SN-MP (P<0.001) angle between the Dolphin software and CephNinjaPro application after landmark identification.
Conclusion: The CephNinjaPro application has acceptable validity and reliability for most of the linear and angular cephalometric measurements from the clinical perspective. Nonetheless, interpretation of results regarding some measurements should be done with caution.


Main Subjects

  1. Gayatri G, Harsanti A, Zenab Y, Sunaryo IR. Steiner cephalometric analysis discrepancies between conventional and digital methods using Cephninja® application software. J Dent. 2016;28(3):154-8. doi: 10.24198/pjd.vol28no3.13671.
  2. Kazandjian S, Kiliaridis S, Mavropoulos A. Validity and reliability of a new edge-based computerized method for identification of cephalometric landmarks. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(4):619-24. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219 (2006)076[0619:VAROAN]2.0.CO;2. PMID: 16808568.
  3. Celik E, Polat-Ozsoy O, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(3):241-6. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn105. PMID: 19237509.
  4. Leonardi R, Giordano D, Maiorana F, Spampinato C. Automatic cephalometric analysis: a systematic review. The Angle Orthodontist. 2008;78(1):145-51. doi: 10.2319/120506-491.1. PMID: 18193970.
  5. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chung-Chen Yao J, 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.
  7. Nouri M, Hamidiaval S, Baghban AA, Basafa M, Fahim M. Efficacy of a newly designed cephalometric analysis software for mcnamara analysis in comparison with dolphin software. J Dent. 2015;12(1):60-9. PMID: 26005455.
  8. Albarakati SF, Kula KS, Ghoneima AA. The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41(1):11-7. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/37010910. PMID: 22184624.
  9. Power G, Breckon J, Sherriff M, McDonald F. Dolphin Imaging Software: an analysis of the accuracy of cephalometric digitization and orthognathic prediction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;34(6): 619-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2005.04.003. PMID: 15916879.
  10. Ahmad Sh. Reliability and accuracy of dolphin software compared with conventional method for cephalometric evaluation. J Clin Med Res. 2016;1(2):11-6.
  11. Prabhakar R, Rajakumar P, Karthikeyan MK, Saravanan R, Vikram NR, Reddy A. A hard tissue cephalometric comparative study between hand tracing and computerized tracing. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2014;6(1):101-6. doi: 10.4103/0975-7406. 137401. PMID: 25210347.
  12. Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun T. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29(1):105-8. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjl065. PMID: 17290023.
  13. Shettigar P, Shetty S, Naik RD, Basavaraddi SM, Patil AK. A comparative evaluation of reliability of an android-based app and computerized cephalometric tracing program for orthodontic cephalometric analysis. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2019;12(1):341-6. doi: 10.13005/bpj/1645.
  14. Jacobson A, White L. Radiographic cephalometry: from basics to 3-D imaging. Germany: Quintessence Pub Co; 2006.
  15. Sayar G, Kilinc DD. Manual tracing versus smartphone application (app) tracing: a comparative study. Acta Odontol Scand. 2017;75(8):588-94. doi: 10.1080/ 00016357.2017.1364420. PMID: 28793813.
  16. Livas C, Delli K, Spijkervet FK, Vissink A, Dijkstra PU. Concurrent validity and reliability of cephalometric analysis using smartphone apps and computer software. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(6):889-96. doi: 10.2319/021919-124.1. PMID: 31282737.
  17. Sekiguchi T, Savara BS. Variability of cephalometric landmarks used for face growth studies. Am J Orthod. 1972;61(6):603-18. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(72) 90109-1. PMID: 4503698.
  18. Paixão MB, Sobral MC, Vogel CJ, Araujo TM. Comparative study between manual and digital cephalometric tracing using Dolphin Imaging software with lateral radiographs. Dent Press J Orthod. 2010;15(6):123-30.