Cephalometric Tracing Program For Kids
Facad ® is a software program used for orthodontic tracing, cephalometric analysis, and visual diagnostic imaging, as well as for treatment planning with soft.
Version 13.1 of Dr. Ceph out now! Contact us to learn more about our NEW CLOUD SERVICE! Call 208-265-8374 for more information.
Demos of the current local versions can be downloaded here: • 13.1 includes the following: • Improved zooming capability. You can now zoom anywhere and at any time. • 1:1 scale printing of patient images and traces. • Easier to use controls for changing the shape of traces or moving points and landmarks.
• New Alveolar Canal, Temporal Sulci, and Symphysis tracings to accommodate changes in the ABO. • Minnesota 2012 Analysis • Sassouni Plus AAGO Analysis • Arnett Soft Tissue Analysis For Your Imaging Technologies developed and markets an imaging system utilizing cephalometric analysis software specifically for Orthodontists, Oral/Maxillofacial Surgeons, and General Dentists. We use state-of-the-art technology to produce the highest quality image capture and manipulation systems in the industry. System significantly increases patient acceptance of proposed treatment plans. Earlier versions of the software were recognized in a FORTUNE magazine article spotlighting the 'top 25 very cool technology companies' and received a 1996 Merit Award from the Wisconsin Society of Professional Engineers for 'professional engineering initiative and innovation.'
System consists of two software programs that allow the patient to actually see the effects of the proposed treatment. By utilizing our system, the initial examination, record-taking, treatment planning and patient consultation can be accomplished in one single appointment., a cephalometric analysis program with image morphing, was the first of its kind to superimpose the x-ray and photograph into one manipulable image which shows both hard and soft tissue. Our cephalometric analysis software has over 50 analyses built into the program, including cervical vertebrae, frontal, lateral, and occlusal analyses. It also has the ability to customize your own analysis or modify an existing one. Using clinically accurate hard tissue movement, the patient's profile can be morphed to show the results of the proposed treatment. English, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, or Slovakian interface. If you would like to see tutorial videos on Dr.
Ceph, visit our page. Is an image capture and case presentation program which allows the doctor the ability to customize the consultation for each patient. A slide show utilizing the patient's images can be quickly created. The patient's photographs can be archived to CD-ROM and printed to any Windows compatible printer. Custom form letters with embedded orthodontic images to send to your patients.
Abstract Objective: To establish cephalometric norms of McNamara's analysis in young Chinese and compare them to those of a matched young Caucasian sample. Materials and Methods: The material comprised lateral cephalometric radiographs of a random sample of 200 male and 205 female 12-year-old southern Chinese children, and an additional sample of 43 male and 43 female 12-year-old British Caucasian children in Hong Kong. The radiographs were digitized twice with the CASSOS program. Results: The results showed that there were statistically significant gender differences for six out of the 11 cephalometric variables in the Chinese, but for only one variable in the Caucasians. The size of the statistically significant gender differences varied from −0.3 to 0.4 on SD scores.
There were statistically significant ethnic differences for eight variables in males and seven variables in females. The size of the observed statistically significant ethnic differences varied from −1.8 to 1.6 on SD scores. Conclusion: The use of specific standards for Chinese, separate for gender, for McNamara's cephalometric analysis seems to be justified.
INTRODUCTION Since its introduction in 1931 by Broadbent and Hofrath in the United States and Germany, respectively, radiographic cephalometry has become one of the most important tools of clinical and research orthodontics. In a contemporary comprehensive textbook on cephalometry, a list of the most well-known and popular cephalometric analyses included no fewer than 23 analyses introduced between 1946 and 1985. One of the more recent additions is the McNamara analysis. The vast majority of the 23 analyses used reference values obtained from selected, often small, samples of Caucasians, and some of these methods made no distinction for age or gender. One method included reference values based a small sample, separate for gender, over a 15-year age range, whereas for a few methods the references were based on larger samples separate for gender and age groups.
In principle, McNamara's analysis combines the anterior reference plane (a plane perpendicular to the Frankfurt horizontal through the nasion) described by Burstone et al and a description of the length of the jaws and their relationship as given by Harvold. This specific innovative cephalometric analysis was introduced because “a need had arisen for a method of cephalometric analysis that is sensitive not only to the position of teeth within a given bone, but also to the relationship of jaw elements and cranial base structures one to another.” This approach makes the actual analysis most suitable for diagnosis, treatment planning, and treatment evaluation, not only of conventional orthodontic patients, but also for patients with skeletal discrepancies who are candidates for dentofacial orthopedics and orthognathic surgery. However, for the appropriate application of any cephalometric analysis, it must be used with norms derived from populations similar to the orthodontic patients with regard to ethnic group, gender, and age. Because orthodontic patients nowadays range from juveniles to senior citizens and come from various ethnic groups, a wide range of representative norms would be ideal. Windows 7 Vienna Download. Nevertheless, patients most commonly undergo orthodontic treatment at around 10–14 years of age, and priority should be given to obtaining solid norms for this age group. At present, there is no published Chinese norm for the McNamara analysis.
The aim for this study is therefore to establish norms for young Chinese children. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two hundred male and 207 female 12-year-old southern Chinese schoolchildren were selected by a partially stratified random sampling method from 10 schools in Hong Kong.
Two females with previous and current orthodontic treatment were excluded, and the final sample consisted of 200 males and 205 females (). In addition a sample was drawn from two expatriate schools that agreed to participate in the study, consisting of 47 male and 43 female 12-year-old Caucasian school children living in Hong Kong whose parents originated from the United Kingdom. This sample was used for ethnic comparison. Four British males were excluded from the initial sample because of previous or current orthodontic treatment, and the final sample consisted of 43 males and 43 females. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong in 1983.
Radiographic Technique All the lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken in natural head posture as originally defined by Molhave and later adopted and modified by others. The x-ray machine used for both Chinese and Caucasian samples was a General Electric GE1000 (Milwaukee, WI). Magnification was 8. Ahon Bata Sa Lansangan Programa. 8% for the midsagittal structure, ear-rods were used, and the subjects looked into a mirror 200 cm ahead after first tilting the head forward and backward with decreasing amplitude until a comfortable position of natural balance was found. The lips were in light contact. Intensifying screens were used to minimize the exposure level. Free comprehensive dental treatment, including orthodontic treatment, was offered to all subjects, and copies of the original radiographs were later used for diagnosis. Method Error There was no statistically significant difference between the method error of the tracing by manual and digitizer.
Finally, all the radiographs were digitized twice with the program CASSOS. The data were averaged and analyzed by SPSS. Method errors were calculated by Dahlberg's formula, ME = ( Σ d 2/2n) ½, where Σ d 2 is the sum of the squared differences between the two mean values, and n is the number of double measurements. The method errors for linear and angular measurement were not statistically significant, and did not exceed 0.5 mm and 0.7° respectively for any variables. Gender Differences There were no statistically significant gender differences among the Chinese subjects for the variables relating the maxilla to cranial base and dentition, but five of the six variables related to the mandible and maxilla, and the variable related to mandible to cranial base, showed statistically significant differences.
Three variables among the Chinese subjects were significantly larger in males: effective midface length (2.0 mm; SD score 0.4), lower face height (1.8 mm; SD score 0.4), and mandibular plane angle (1.7°; SD score 0.3). Three variables were significantly larger in females: maxillomandibular difference (−1.3 mm; SD score −0.3), facial axis angle (−1.7°; SD score −0.4), and pogonion to nasion perpendicular (−2.6 mm; SD score −0.4). Among the Caucasian subjects, a statistically significant gender difference was noted for one parameter only, lower anterior face height, which was larger (2.5 mm; SD score 0.5) in males than in females (). Ethnic Differences Among the male subjects, statistically significant differences were noted for all three variables related to the dentition and mandible to cranial base, one of the two variables related to the maxilla to cranial base, and four of the six variables related to mandible to maxilla. Five of the variables were larger in the Chinese subjects, two angular measurements, SNA (1.5°; SD score 0.5), mandibular plane angle (4.8°; SD score 1.0), and three linear measurements, maxillomandibular difference (2.1 mm; SD score 0.5), upper incisor to point A vertical (1.5 mm; SD score 0.6) and lower incisor to A-Po line (3.2 mm; SD score 1.4), whereas three variables were larger in the Caucasian subjects, ie, effective midface length (−2.9 mm; SD score −0.7), facial axis angle (−6.7°; SD score −1.8), and pogonion to nasion perpendicular (−2.7 mm; SD score −0.4).
In females, there was no statistically significant difference for maxilla to cranial base and mandible to cranial base, whereas 5 out of 6 variables of mandible to maxilla, and the two variables related to dentition, differed significantly. Five variables were statistically significantly larger in Chinese females: three for mandible to maxilla, maxillomandibular difference (4.7 mm; SD score 1.4), lower anterior face height (1.8 mm; SD score 0.4), and mandibular plane angle (3.9 mm; SD score 0.8), and the two variables related to dentition, upper incisor to point A vertical (2.6 mm; SD score 1.0) and lower incisor to A-Po line (3.7 mm; SD score 1.6). Two variables related to maxilla to mandible were larger in Caucasian females: effective midface length (−4.5 mm; SD score −1.1) and facial axis angle (−5.3°; SD score −1.4). DISCUSSION This study established norms for McNamara analysis in southern Chinese, separate for gender (). The study was based on a large sample of 12-year-old children that was representative of its original population. In the study, the cephalograms were measured twice and averaged figures were used.
These repeated measurements reduced the error of landmark identification, and duplicate measurements were sufficient for a comparison of the two groups. Consequently, the means and standard deviations of the 11 cephalometric variables investigated in this study should be considered as representative for 12-year-old Chinese. Besides a conventional statistical t-test of the differences between variables for the two genders and the two ethnic groups, standard deviation scores were also used. The statistically significant gender differences among the Chinese subjects and the ethnic differences between Chinese and Caucasians (, and ) were also expressed in standard deviation scores. In other words, the differences were expressed not only in degrees and millimeters, but also in relation to their variation around the mean of the actual parameter (, and ).
The use of standard deviation scores to describe the extent to which a certain patient deviated for specific cephalometric variables can also be done in clinical situations. In McNamara's original study, the standards separate for gender were based on 73 untreated female and 38 male adults with well-balanced faces and good occlusion. In addition, composite normative standards were obtained from the same adult sample and two other samples. One was a small sample of boys and girls followed from 6 to 18 years of age, and the other a medium-sized sample of boys and girls followed from 6 to 20 years, in which jaw measurements and lower face height measurements were also given specifically for various ages. Ethnic Differences A direct ethnic comparison was possible only between the 12-year-old Chinese and 12-year-old Caucasian samples obtained in the present study (), but a close comparison of some variables was possible with the two samples of 12-year-old Caucasians included in the original study ().
This study showed marked ethnic differences for seven of the 11 variables of each gender between the Chinese and Caucasian samples (). The statistically significant ethnic differences expressed in standard deviation scores ranged from −1.8 to 1.4 in males and −1.4 to 1.6 in females for McNamara's analysis in this study. This degree of difference would appear to justify separate cephalometric standards for Chinese and Caucasian children. Such ethnic differences were to be expected, because a similar ethnic pattern was noticed from comparison of those samples when adopting conventional cephalometrics.
Ethnic differences in conventional cephalometric methods have also been reported for Chinese versus Indians and Malays respectively. Ethnic differences have also been reported for cephalometric comparison of Chinese and Caucasian samples with malocclusions. The reference values obtained in this study for Chinese were compared with reference values for the samples of 12-year-old patients from the Bolton and Burlington growth study, and some parameters not affected by growth from the Ann Arbor sample of adults () as given by McNamara. The ethnic differences were in general confirmed. However, for the two variables of dentition in both genders (), the 12-year-old Caucasian sample of the present study differed significantly from the 12-year-old Bolton standards, but not from the 12-year-old Burlington standards.
There were also similar differences between the smaller sample of 12-year-olds from the Bolton standards and the larger sample from the Burlington standards (), which might reflect unspecified differences in selection criteria between the two samples. The effective mandibular and midface lengths were significantly longer in the 12-year-old Caucasian females in this study than in those of the Burlington sample only, and there was no significant difference in maxillomandibular difference (). Gender Difference In this study there was a statistically significant difference between male and female Chinese subjects for six of the seven variables related to the mandible (the exception was effective mandibular length; ). Expressed in SD scores these gender differences were 0.3 to 0.4.
Although there was no significant difference in the length of the mandible between the genders, the mandible was significantly more retrognathic, the mandibular plane and facial axis angle were steeper, and lower face height was larger in males. Because effective maxillary length was larger, maxillomandibular length was also longer in males than in females.
However, for the maxilla to cranial base and dentition variables, there was no statistically significant difference between the genders. Previous cephalometric studies have indicated that there were some gender differences in the conventional cephalometric parameters among Chinese populations. In the Caucasian sample used in this study, there was no similar pattern in gender differences of the cephalometric parameters, because the only significant difference was lower face height ().
This is consistent with a report that both angular and linear measurements in both genders in Caucasians were in general agreement. A similar gender difference in lower face height was also found in the other 12-year-old Caucasian samples, but reached a statistically significant level in the Burlington sample only.
However, for the Burlington 12-year-olds, there were also statistically significant gender differences for effective midface and mandibular length in three of the four listed variables. For the adult original sample calculations revealed that there were gender differences for six of the 11 dentoskeletal variables, the variables being identical to those with significant gender differences in the Chinese 12-year-old sample used in this study ().
This finding indicates that there probably were statistically significant differences for those variables in representative samples, and that separate standards should be used for each gender. Figure 1.The cephalometric landmarks and definitions (McNamara).