Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs: A methodological error

摘要

We were interested to read the paper by Erkan and Gurel published in the June 2012 issue of Eur J Orthod. The authors aimed to compare the traditional method of manual cephalometric tracing with four different computerized tracing programs (Dolphin Imaging, Vistadent, Nemoceph and Quick Ceph). They used multivariate analysis of variance and Box's and Levene's tests, showing no statistically significant difference between manual tracing and the computerized tracing programs (Erkan et ah, 2012).