{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025040827436037017, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012520413718018509, 'mean_word_length': 5.381944444444445, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The reliability and reproducibility of an Android cephalometric smartphone application in comparison with the conventional method.

OBJECTIVES
To assess the reliability and reproducibility of linear and angular measurements of the cephalometric smartphone Android application OneCeph in comparison with the conventional method.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total number of 22 landmarks were registered, and 26 skeletal and dental cephalometric parameters were measured on 30 pretreatment cephalograms. The measurements for both digital (OneCeph) and conventional tracings were performed twice with a 4-week interval. The reliability (intraexaminer error) was evaluated by using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The variation in measurements between the tracing techniques (reproducibility) was determined by paired t-test.


RESULTS
The Pearson correlation coefficients of all cephalometric measurements for each tracing technique were ≥ 0.95. Significant differences between the two tracing techniques were detected in five measurements (SNB angle, N I to Pog linear measurement, U1-Apoint linear measurement, U lip to S line, and nasiolabial angle; P < .05).


CONCLUSIONS
Using 26 measurements to compare both tracing methods, all mean differences between the digital (OneCeph) and conventional methods were below 1 degree/1 mm, indicating that differences between the tracing methods were clinically insignificant. The U1-A point measurement was an exception for the digital method (OneCeph) with a clinically significant difference of 1.25 mm (P < .01); the difference was a result of wrongly measuring the distance from the A line to the incisor edge of the upper central incisor rather than the facial surface of the upper incisor. This leads to the conclusion that both tracing methods were reliable for daily clinical practice.