Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한악안면성형재건외과학회)
권호 표지

VALIDITY OF POSTERIOR ANTERIOR CEPHALOMETRIC AND 3D-CT FOR ORBITAL CANTING ANALYSIS

안와 경사의 분석을 위한 정모 두부규격방사선사진, 3D-CT의 유용성 평가

  • Kim, Jin-Wook (Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
  • 김진욱 (경북대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실)
  • Published : 2008.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to estimate validity of posterior anterior cephalometric and 3D-CT for orbital canting analysis. Materials and methods: Three trained observers classified two patients group using standardized frontal photographs of facial asymmetry patients. Group A consisted of patients with facial asymmetry and orbital canting(n=19), and group B consisted of patients with only facial asymmetry(n=43). Orbital canting was measured with line of bilateral inferior orbitale. Orbital canting measurement was done with posterior anterior cephalometric and 3D-CT. Each horizontal reference line was established by bilateral GWSO(cephalometric), FZS(3D-CT). Maxillary canting and mandibular deviation angle were also measured and analyzed with orbital canting. Results: The mean orbital canting was $3.03{\pm}1.00^{\circ}$ in Group A and $1.11{\pm}0.76^{\circ}$ in Group B in frontal photograph. The mean orbital canting was $1.20{\pm}0.74^{\circ}$ in group A and $1.22{\pm}0.65^{\circ}$ in group B by cephalometric analysis(p>0.05). In 3D-CT, orbital canting was almost paralleled with horizontal reference line. The orbital canting, maxillay canting and mandibular deviation between two groups showed no significant differences except madibular deviation in 3D-CT. Conclusion: Common analysis of posterior anterior cephalometric and 3D-CT is not valide method to evaluate orbital canting for facial asymmetry patients with orbital canting.

Keywords

References

  1. Tweed CH : Frankfort mandibular incisior angles in diagnosis: treatment planning and prognosis. Angle Orthod 24 : 121, 1954
  2. Downs WB : Analysis of the dentofacial profile. Angle Orthod 26 : 191, 1956
  3. Steiner CC : Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod 29 : 8, 1959
  4. McNamara J : A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Ortho 86(6) : 449, 1984 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(84)90352-X
  5. Springer IN, Wannicke B, Warnke PH et al : Facial Attractiveness: Visual impact of symmetry increases significantly towards the midline. Ann Plast Surg 59 : 156, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000252041.66540.ec
  6. Major PW, Johnson DE, Hesse KL et al : Effect of Head orientation on posterior anterior cephalometric landmark identification. 66(1) : 51, 1996
  7. Hurst CA, Eppley BL, Havlik RJ : Surgical Ceph-alometrics: Applications and developments. Plast Reconstr Surg 120 : 92, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000282728.97278.a2
  8. Trpkova B, Prasad NG, Lam EW et al : Assessment of facial asymmetry from posteroanterior cephalograms: Validity of reference lines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 123 : 512, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(02)57034-7
  9. Major PW, Johnson DE, Hesse KL et al : Landmark identification error in posteiror anterior cephalometrics. Angle Orthod 64(6) : 447, 1994
  10. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF et al : Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod 70(5) : 387, 2000
  11. Farman AG, Scarfe WC : Development of imaging selection criteria and procedures should precede cephalometric assessment with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130 : 257, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.021
  12. Park JH, Son SI, Jang HJ et al : Nasal deviation in patients with mandibulo-facial asymmetry. J of Korean association of maxillofacial Plastic & Reconstructive surgery 27(2) : 151, 2005
  13. Padwa BL, Kaiser MO, Kaban LB : Occlusal cant in the frontal plane as a reflection of facial asymmetry. J Oral maxillofacial Surg 55 : 811, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(97)90338-4
  14. Agthong S, Huanmanop T, Chentanez V : Anatomical variations of the supraorbital, infraorbital, and mental foramina related to gender and side. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63 : 800, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.02.016
  15. Taub PJ, Koch RM : Orbital dystopia managed with unilateral brow suspension. Mt Sinai J Med 73(7) : 1031, 2006
  16. Arnett GW, McLaughlin RP : Facial and dental planning for orthodontics and oral surgerns. Elsevier Inc, 2004, p.51
  17. Michiels LY, Tourne LP : Nasion true vertical: a proposed method for testing the clinical validity of cephalomeric measurements applied to a new cephalometric reference line. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 5(1) : 43, 1990
  18. Pirttiniemi P, Miettinen J, Kantomaa T : Combined effect of errors in frontal-view asymmetry diagnosis. Eur J Orthod 18 : 629, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/18.1.629
  19. Alves PV, Mazucheli J, Vogel CJ et al : Technical straregies: A protocol for cranial base reference in cephalometric studies. J Craniofac Surg 19(1) : 211, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0b013e31814fb80e
  20. Masuoka N, Muramatsu A, Ariji Y et al : Discriminative thresholds of cephalometric indexes in the subjective evaluation of facial asymmetry. Am J Orthodo Dentofacial Orthop 131 : 609, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.07.020
  21. Lundstrom F, Lundstrom A : Natural head position as a basis for cephalometric analysis. Am J Ortohd Dentofacial Orthop 101(3) : 244, 1992 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(92)70093-P
  22. Gliddon MJ, Xia JJ, Gateno J et al : The accuracy of cephalometric tracing superimposition. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64 : 194, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.10.028
  23. Kragskov J, Bosch C, Gyldensted C et al : Composition of the reliability of craniofacial anatomy landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 34(2) : 111, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(1997)034<0111:COTROC>2.3.CO;2
  24. Baek SH, Cho IS, Chang YI et al : Skeletodental factors affecting chin point deviation in female patiens with class III malocclusion and facial asymmetry: a three-dimensional analysis using computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104 : 628, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.03.002
  25. Huisinga-Fischer CE, Zonneveld FW, Vaandrager JM et al : CT-based size and shape determination of the craniofacial skeleton: a new scoring system to assess bony deformity in hemifacial microsomia. J Craniofac Surg 12(1) : 87, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-200101000-00015
  26. Janson G, de Lima KJ, Woodside DG et al : Class II subdivision malocclusion types and evaluation of their asymmetries. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 131 : 57, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.031
  27. Yogosawa F : Predicting soft tissue profile changes concurrent with orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 60(3) : 199, 1990
  28. Ricketts RM, Bench RW, Hilgers JJ et al : An overview of computerized cephalometrics. Am J Ortho 61 : 1, 1972 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(72)90172-8
  29. Grummons DC, Kappeyne MA : A frontal asymmetry analysis. J Clin Ortho 21 : 448, 1987
  30. Svanholt P, Solow B : Assessment of midline discrepancies on the postero-anterior cephalometric radiograph. Tran Eur Orthod Soc 25 : 261, 1977
  31. Zepa I, Huggare J : Reference structures for assessment of frontal head posture. Eur J Orthod 20 : 694, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/20.6.694
  32. Mulick JF : Clinical use of the frontal head film. Angle Orthod 35 : 299, 1965