ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2025
Comparative Evaluation of Digital and Manual Cephalometric Analysis in Mouth-breathing Patients: An
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Understanding the characteristics of craniofacial morphology as well as their growth pattern in children is essential in diagnosis and treatment planning. Lateral cephalometric analysis remains a key diagnostic tool, aided by various software options that improve efficiency, minimize errors, and provide consistent results. With the growing use of computer-aided cephalometric tracing programs in today's dental practice, it is important to evaluate the accuracy of these commercially available cephalometric tracing software and apps to allow the clinician to decide the suitable method of analysis. Aim: To compare digital and manual cephalometric values of Tweed's, Downs, and Steiner's analyses in mouth-breathing patients. Materials and methods: About 30 pretreatment lateral cephalograms of patients exhibiting mouth-breathing habits, who reported to the dental clinic/institute for various treatment purposes, were selected for study. Digital cephalograms were imported into EasyCeph application and Vistadent software for on-screen digitization. Additionally, manual tracings were performed using acetate sheets, 0.7 mm pencil, ruler, and LED-illuminated tracing board. After ensuring image standardization and calibration, 25 commonly referenced anatomical landmarks were identified on each cephalogram. A total of 22 cephalometric parameters from Steiner's, Tweed's, and Down's analyses were assessed. Descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA were applied for data analysis. Results: Linear and angular measurements obtained through digital cephalometric analysis were found to be comparable to those derived from manual tracing methods. Differences observed among the three groups were statistically nonsignificant ( Conclusion: Digital measurements obtained using EasyCeph and Vistadent software closely aligned with those from the manual tracing method for the majority of clinically relevant parameters. Hence, both EasyCeph and Vistadent can be considered reliable and effective alternatives to traditional manual cephalometric analysis. Clinical significance: As mouth-breathing children seem to have various skeletal and dental abnormalities compared to nasal-breathing children, early diagnosis and timely intervention will prevent future dentofacial complications. How to cite this article: Padmanabham S, AJ SS, E S,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.