Cephalometric landmark variability among orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists: a comparative study
- PMID: 26730368
- PMCID: PMC4697005
- DOI: 10.5624/isd.2015.45.4.213
Cephalometric landmark variability among orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists: a comparative study
Abstract
Purpose: The aim this study was to compare the accuracy of orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists in identifying 17 commonly used cephalometric landmarks, and to determine the extent of variability associated with each of those landmarks.
Materials and methods: Twenty digital lateral cephalometric radiographs were evaluated by two groups of dental specialists, and 17 cephalometric landmarks were identified. The x and y coordinates of each landmark were recorded. The mean value for each landmark was considered the best estimate and used as the standard. Variation in measurements of the distance between landmarks and measurements of the angles associated with certain landmarks was also assessed by a subset of two observers, and intraobserver and interobserver agreement were evaluated.
Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients were excellent for intraobserver agreement, but only good for interobserver agreement. The least reliable landmark for orthodontists was the gnathion (Gn) point (standard deviation [SD], 5.92 mm), while the orbitale (Or) was the least reliable landmark (SD, 4.41 mm) for dentomaxillofacial radiologists. Furthermore, the condylion (Co)-Gn plane was the least consistent (SD, 4.43 mm).
Conclusion: We established that some landmarks were not as reproducible as others, both horizontally and vertically. The most consistently identified landmark in both groups was the lower incisor border, while the least reliable points were Co, Gn, Or, and the anterior nasal spine. Overall, a lower level of reproducibility in the identification of cephalometric landmarks was observed among orthodontists.
Keywords: Analysis; Anatomic Landmarks; Cephalometry; Orthodontics; Reliability and Validity.
Figures


Similar articles
-
Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo.Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009 Jul;38(5):262-73. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/81889955. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009. PMID: 19474253
-
Accuracy of cephalometric landmark identification by artificial intelligence platform versus expert orthodontist in unilateral cleft palate patients: A retrospective study.Int Orthod. 2025 Jun;23(2):100990. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2025.100990. Epub 2025 Feb 19. Int Orthod. 2025. PMID: 39978248
-
The Effect of Emboss Enhancement on Reliability of Landmark Identification in Digital Lateral Cephalometric Images.Iran J Radiol. 2015 Apr 22;12(2):e19302. doi: 10.5812/iranjradiol.19302. eCollection 2015 Apr. Iran J Radiol. 2015. PMID: 26060555 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of the Reliability of Anatomic Landmarks based on PA Cephalometric Radiographs and 3D CT Scans in Patients with Facial Asymmetry.Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011 Sep-Dec;4(3):213-23. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1112. Epub 2011 Apr 15. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011. PMID: 27678229 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The Accuracy of Algorithms Used by Artificial Intelligence in Cephalometric Points Detection: A Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel). 2024 Dec 18;11(12):1286. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering11121286. Bioengineering (Basel). 2024. PMID: 39768104 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Cephalometric Landmarks: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.J Digit Imaging. 2023 Jun;36(3):1158-1179. doi: 10.1007/s10278-022-00766-w. Epub 2023 Jan 5. J Digit Imaging. 2023. PMID: 36604364 Free PMC article.
-
Artificial intelligence-based cephalometric landmark annotation and measurements according to Arnett's analysis: can we trust a bot to do that?Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2022 Sep 1;51(6):20200548. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20200548. Epub 2022 Aug 5. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2022. PMID: 33882247 Free PMC article.
-
Vertical head rotation as major source of differences between time-separated digital cephalometric radiographs of patients acquired in one cephalostat X-ray device.BMC Med Imaging. 2022 Nov 24;22(1):208. doi: 10.1186/s12880-022-00935-x. BMC Med Imaging. 2022. PMID: 36434538 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of fully automated cephalometric measurements obtained from web-based artificial intelligence driven platform.BMC Oral Health. 2022 Apr 19;22(1):132. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02170-w. BMC Oral Health. 2022. PMID: 35440037 Free PMC article.
-
Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Skeletal Stability following Surgery-First Orthognathic Approach: Validation of a Simple and Effective Method.Arch Plast Surg. 2023 May 29;50(3):254-263. doi: 10.1055/a-2058-8108. eCollection 2023 May. Arch Plast Surg. 2023. PMID: 37256039 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod. 1931;1:45–66.
-
- Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod. 1971;60:111–127. - PubMed
-
- Chen YJ, Chen SK, Huang HW, Yao CC, Chang HF. Reliability of landmark identification in cephalometric radiography acquired by a storage phosphor imaging system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33:301–306. - PubMed
-
- Kamoen A, Dermaut L, Verbeeck R. The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. Eur J Orthod. 2001;23:569–578. - PubMed
-
- Miloro M, Borba AM, Ribeiro-Junior O, Naclério-Homem MG, Jungner M. Is there consistency in cephalometric landmark identification amongst oral and maxillofacial surgeons? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43:445–453. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources