Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (대한구강악안면외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Accuracy and reproducibility of landmark of cone beam computed tomography (CT) synthesized cephalograms

Cone beam computed tomography로 합성된 두부규격 방사선사진에서의 각 계측점의 정확도와 재현성에 관한 연구

  • Kwon, Dae-Keun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Min, Seung-Ki (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Jun, In-Chul (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Paeng, Jun-Young (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University)
  • 권대근 (원광대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 민승기 (원광대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 전인철 (원광대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 팽준영 (성균관대학교 삼성서울병원 구강악안면외과)
  • Received : 2010.01.13
  • Accepted : 2010.03.23
  • Published : 2010.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Introduction: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has various advantages and is used favorably in many fields in dentistry. Especially, CBCT is being used as basic diagnostic tool for 3-dimensional analysis in orthognathic patient. Two-dimensional cephalograms can be synthesized from CBCT digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) data. In this study, conventional cephalograms and CBCT were taken simultaneously, and representative landmarks were located and analyzed in its accuracy and reproducibility. Materials and Methods: Ten patients who had orthognathic surgery in Wonkwang University Daejeon Dental Hospital participated in this study. For each patient, CBCT and conventional cephalogram was taken. By using Ondemand (Cybermad, Korea), 2-dimensional cephalograms was established on CBCT. In addition, 19 landmarks were designated and measured by 3 orthodontists twice a week. After these landmarks were transferred to a coordinate, distance of landmark and axis, standard error, distribution degree were measured, compared and analyzed. Results: Comparing the CT ceph group and conventional cephalogram group, CT ceph group had shown shorter distance of landmark and axis in S, Hinge axis, Bpt, Ba, Or, Corpus left. Standard error of the mean shows that CT ceph group has better reproducibility in Or, Corpus left, Hinge axis at X axis and Na, U1R, U1T, Bpt, PNS, Ba Corpus left, Hinge axis at Y axis. In both groups, mean error was less than 1.00 mm, no significant difference were found between CT ceph group and conventional cephalogram group in all measurements. Furthermore, comparing two groups, each 17 landmarks out of 19 had its characteristic in distribution degree. Conclusion: No significant difference were found between CBCT composed cephalographic radiograph and conventional cephalograghic radiograph, clinical application may be possible if improved.

Keywords

References

  1. Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle orthod 1931;1:45-66.
  2. Mah JK, Danforth RA, Bumann A, Hatcher D. Radiation absorbed in maxillofacial imaging with a new dental computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;96:508-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(03)00350-0
  3. Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S, Karayianni K, Kamenopoulou V, Hourdakis CJ. Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose Cone Beam CT. Eur J Radiol 2005;56:413-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.05.011
  4. Halazonetis DJ. From 2-dimensional cephalograms to 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:627-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.01.004
  5. Huang J, Bumann A, Mah J. Three-dimensional radiographic analysis in orthodontics. J Clin Orthod 2005;39:421-8.
  6. Kang JY, Lim SH, Kim KW. The reliability of the cephalogram generated from cone-beam CT. Korea J Orthod 2007;37:391-9.
  7. Adams GL, Gansky SA, Miller AJ, Harrell WE Jr, Hatcher DC. Comparison between traditional 2-dimensional cephalometry and a 3-dimensional approach on human dry skulls. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:397-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.023
  8. Kamiishi H, Miyasato Y, Kosaka M. Development of the 3Dcephalogram: a technical note. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2007; 35:258-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2007.04.004
  9. Mori Y, Miyajima T, Minami K, Sakuda M. An accurate threedimensional cephalometric system: a solution for the correction of cephalic malpositioning. J Orthod 2001;28:143-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/28.2.143
  10. Grayson B, Cutting C, Bookstein FL, Kim H, McCarthy JG. The three-dimensional cephalogram: theory, technique, and clinical application. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:327-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90058-3
  11. Baumrind S, Moffitt FH, Curry S. Three-dimensional x-ray stereometry from paired coplanar images: a progress report. Am J Orthod 1983;84:292-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(83)90346-9
  12. Brown T, Abbott AH. Computer-assisted location of reference points in three dimensions for radiographic cephalometry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:490-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90412-5
  13. Trocme′MC, Sather AH, An KN. A biplanar cephalometric stereoradiography technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:168-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(90)70011-Z
  14. Bae GS, Park SB, Son WS. The comparative study of three-dimensional cephalograms in linear and angular measurements. Korea J Orthod 1997;27:129-40.
  15. Gravely JF, Benzies PM. The clinical significance of tracing error in cephalometry. Br J Orthod 1974;1:95-101.
  16. McClure SR, Sadowsky PL, Ferreira A, Jacobson A. Reliability of digital versus conventional cephalometric radiology: a comparative evaluation of landmark identification error. Semin Orthod 2005;11:98-110. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2005.04.002
  17. Trpkova B, Major P, Prasad N, Nebbe B. Cephalometric landmarks identification and reproducibility: a meta analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:165-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70242-7
  18. Geelen W, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E, Kruger M, Hansson LG. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional film, hardcopy, and monitor-displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:331-40. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/20.3.331
  19. 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 2006;130:257-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.021
  20. Moshiri M, Scarfe WC, Hilgers ML, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:550-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.046
  21. Liu JK, Chen YT, Cheng KS. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:535-40. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2000.110168