BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional cephalometric analyses are getting more attraction in orthodontics. The aim of this study was to compare two softwares to evaluate three-dimensional cephalometric analyses of orthodontic treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty cone beam computed tomography images were obtained using i-CAT(®) imaging system from patient's records as part of their regular orthodontic records. The images were analyzed using InVivoDental5.0 (Anatomage Inc.) and 3DCeph™ (University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA) software. Before and after orthodontic treatments data were analyzed using t-test. RESULTS: Reliability test using interclass correlation coefficient was stronger for InVivoDental5.0 (0.83-0.98) compared with 3DCeph™ (0.51-0.90). Paired t-test comparison of the two softwares shows no statistical significant difference in the measurements made in the two softwares. CONCLUSIONS: InVivoDental5.0 measurements are more reproducible and user friendly when compared to 3DCeph™. No statistical difference between the two softwares in linear or angular measurements. 3DCeph™ is more time-consuming in performing three-dimensional analysis compared with InVivoDental5.0.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
El‐Bialy et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: