Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 23, 2026
A Test Bed to Examine Helmet Fit and Retention and Biomechanical Measures of Head and Neck Injury in Simulated Impact
Published on: September 21, 2017
Comparison of reproducibility of natural head position using two methods
Abdul Rahim Khan1, R N G Rajesh, M R Dinesh
1Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Sri Rajiv Gandhi College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Cholanagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka India. drmark4u@gmail.com
Unlabelled:
Lateral cephalometric radiographs have become virtually indispensable to orthodontists in the treatment of patients. They are important in orthodontic growth analysis, diagnosis, treatment planning, monitoring of therapy and evaluation of final treatment outcome.
Aim:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the maximum reproducibility with minimum variation of natural head position using two methods, i.e. the mirror method and the fluid level device method.
Materials And Methods:
The study included two sets of 40 lateral cephalograms taken using two methods of obtaining natural head position: (1) The mirror method and (2) fluid level device method, with a time interval of 2 months. Inclusion criteria • Subjects were randomly selected aged between 18 to 26 years Exclusion criteria • History of orthodontic treatment • Any history of respiratory tract problem or chronic mouth breathing • Any congenital deformity • History of traumatically-induced deformity • History of myofacial pain syndrome • Any previous history of head and neck surgery.
Results:
The result showed that both the methods for obtaining natural head position-the mirror method and fluid level device method were comparable, but maximum reproducibility was more with the fluid level device as shown by the Dahlberg's coefficient and Bland-Altman plot. The minimum variance was seen with the fluid level device method as shown by Precision and Pearson correlation.
Conclusion:
The mirror method and the fluid level device method used for obtaining natural head position were comparable without any significance, and the fluid level device method was more reproducible and showed less variance when compared to mirror method for obtaining natural head position.
Clinical Significance:
Fluid level device method was more reproducible and shows less variance when compared to mirror method for obtaining natural head position.
