Switch to Dark theme

References

Isaacson KA, Thom AR, Horner K, Whaites E, 3rd edn.. London: British Orthodontic Society; 2008
Brown M Methods of analysing a cephalogram to establish anteroposterior skeletal discrepancy. Br J Orthod. 1981; 8:139-146
: NRPB; 2001
Brennan J An introduction to digital radiography in dentistry. J Orthod. 2002; 29:66-69
Turner PJ, Weerakone S An evaluation of the reproducibility of landmark identification using scanned cephalometric images. J Orthod. 2001; 28:221-229
Naoumova J, Lindman R A comparison of manual traced images and corresponding scanned radiographs digitally traced. Eur J Orthod. 2009; 31:247-253
Spolyar JL Head positioning error in cephalometric radiography – an implant study. Angle Orthod. 1987; 57:77-88
Athanasiou AELondon: Mosby-Wolfe; 1995
Chen S, Chen Y, Yao C Enhanced speed and precision of measurement in a computer-assisted digital cephalometric analysis system. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74:501-507
Ghoneima A, Albarakati S, Baysal A, Uysal T, Kula K Measurements from conventional, digital and CT-derived cephalograms: a comparative study. Aust Ortho J. 2012; 28:232-239
Chen Y, Chen S, Huang H, Yao C, Chang H Reliability of landmark identification in cephalometric radiography acquired by a storage phosphor imaging system. Dentomaxfac Radiol. 2004; 33:301-306
Schulze RK, Gloede MB, Doll GM Landmark identification on direct digital versus film-based cephalometric radiographs: a human skull study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122:635-642
Pilling JR Picture archiving and communication systems: the users' view. Br J Radiol. 2003; 76:519-524
Oshagh M, Shahidi SH, Momeni Danaei SH Effects of image enhancement on reliability of landmark identification in digital cephalometry. Indian J Dent Res. 2013; 24:98-103
Doler W, Steinhofel N, Jager A Digital image processing techniques for cephalometric analysis. Comput Biol Med. 1991; 21:23-33
Forsyth DB, Shaw WC, Richmond S Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs, part 2: image quality. Angle Orthod. 1996; 66:43-50
Quintero J, Trosie A Craniofacial imaging in orthodontics: historical perspective, current status, and future developments. Angle Orthod. 1999; 69:491-596

A re-audit of the quality of digital lateral cephalometric radiographs

From Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2015 | Pages 24-27

Authors

John Perry

BDS, MJDF, PgDipClinEd

StR in Orthodontics, Cardiff Dental Hospital, Cardiff, CF14 4XY

Articles by John Perry

Anchal Puri

BDS, MJDF, MClinDent

StR in Orthodontics

Articles by Anchal Puri

John Ho-A-Yun

BDS, MSc

Specialty Dentist in Orthodontics, Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, Fife, KY2 5AH, UK

Articles by John Ho-A-Yun

Abstract

An audit was conducted within a district general hospital's orthodontic department to improve the quality of digital lateral cephalometric radiographs. The results of the audit show improvements in the quality of lateral cephalometric radiographs, following the introduction of a new picture archiving and communications system and charged coupling device cephalometric machine.

Clinical Relevance: A Quality Assurance programme is one of the essential legal requirements of the Ionizing Radiations Regulations 1999 (IRR99). This article demonstrates a simple method to monitor the quality of lateral cephalometric radiographs, based on the Health Protection Agency ratings of radiographic quality.

Article

Lateral cephalometric radiography is a practical, quantitative method providing information on the morphology and relationship of skeletal, dental and soft tissues. Exposures for lateral cephalometric radiographs result in lower effective doses when compared to three-dimensional imaging.1 Antero-posterior relationships remain some of the most challenging aspects of orthodontic treatment. As such, the cephalogram still represents a dose-efficient diagnostic tool.

Cephalometric analyses vary in measurements, but a common set of anatomical landmarks is generally utilized.2 As well as an aid to diagnosis, cephalograms also form a pre-treatment record, monitor the progress of treatment and monitor growth. All cephalograms produced should be of acceptable diagnostic quality and should be clinically justified prior to exposure. Good quality radiographs are essential for efficient and safe healthcare delivery.

A Quality Assurance programme is one of the essential legal requirements of the Ionizing Radiations Regulations 1999 (IRR99). Clinical audit ensures that quality assurance mechanisms are satisfactory and lead to relevant change and improvement.1 The Health Protection Agency (HPA) has developed subjective ratings of radiographic quality to be used for audit purposes. They class Grade 1 as excellent, Grade 2 as diagnostically acceptable and Grade 3 as unacceptable. The HPA minimum standards for radiological image quality are:

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Orthodontic Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available

Already have an account? Sign in here