Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17745938 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866902335410667520 |
|---|---|
| author | Segovia, Karla Teresita Ramón, Dennis Stalin Riofrio, Josselyn Fernanda Siguencia, Valeria del Rosio |
| author_facet | Segovia, Karla Teresita Ramón, Dennis Stalin Riofrio, Josselyn Fernanda Siguencia, Valeria del Rosio |
| contents | <p>Cephalometry is an essential tool in orthodontics for assessing skeletal, dental, and soft tissue relationships. Traditionally, it was performed manually, but with technological advancements, digital tracing software has become available, promising greater speed and reproducibility. </p> <p>Objective: To compare manual and digital cephalometric tracing in terms of accuracy, reproducibility, time, cost, and clinical impact. </p> <p>Materials and methods: This study is a narrative review of literature in English and Spanish based on information collected from databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Scielo, and Google Scholar. </p> <p>Conclusions: The manual method is inexpensive and useful in academic training, but slower and more operator-dependent. The digital method is faster, more reproducible, and facilitates data storage and communication, although it requires an initial investment and training. Both methods are comparable in diagnostic accuracy. The digital method stands out for its efficiency and long-term sustainability, while the manual method retains its pedagogical value and applicability in resource-limited settings.</p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_17745938 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | eng |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | Comparison of manual vs. Digital cephalometric tracing Segovia, Karla Teresita Ramón, Dennis Stalin Riofrio, Josselyn Fernanda Siguencia, Valeria del Rosio Cephalometry Manual Tracing Digital Analysis Artificial Intelligence <p>Cephalometry is an essential tool in orthodontics for assessing skeletal, dental, and soft tissue relationships. Traditionally, it was performed manually, but with technological advancements, digital tracing software has become available, promising greater speed and reproducibility. </p> <p>Objective: To compare manual and digital cephalometric tracing in terms of accuracy, reproducibility, time, cost, and clinical impact. </p> <p>Materials and methods: This study is a narrative review of literature in English and Spanish based on information collected from databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Scielo, and Google Scholar. </p> <p>Conclusions: The manual method is inexpensive and useful in academic training, but slower and more operator-dependent. The digital method is faster, more reproducible, and facilitates data storage and communication, although it requires an initial investment and training. Both methods are comparable in diagnostic accuracy. The digital method stands out for its efficiency and long-term sustainability, while the manual method retains its pedagogical value and applicability in resource-limited settings.</p> |
| title | Comparison of manual vs. Digital cephalometric tracing |
| topic | Cephalometry Manual Tracing Digital Analysis Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17745938 |