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

A comparative study between data obtained from conventional lateral cephalometry and reconstructed three-dimensional computed tomography images

  • Oh, Suseok (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Ci-Young (Department of Nursing, Hanyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Hong, Jongrak (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2014.05.16
  • Accepted : 2014.06.13
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to verify the concordance of the measurement values when the same cephalometric analysis method was used for two-dimensional (2D) cephalometric radiography and three-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT), and to identify which 3D Frankfort horizontal (FH) plane was the most concordant with FH plane used for cephalometric radiography. Materials and Methods: Reference horizontal plane was FH plane. Palatal angle and occlusal plane angle was evaluated with FH plane. Gonial angle (GA), palatal angle, upper occlusal plane angle (UOPA), mandibular plane angle (MPA), U1 to occlusal plane angle, U1 to FH plane angle, SNA and SNB were obtained on 2D cephalmetries and reconstructed 3D CT. The values measured eight angles in 2D lateral cephalometry and reconstructed 3D CT were evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficiency (ICC). It also was evaluated to identify 3D FH plane with high degree of concordance to 2D one by studying which one in four FH planes shows the highest degree of concordance with 2D FH plane. Results: ICCs of MPA (0.752), UOPA (0.745), SNA (0.798) and SNB (0.869) were high. On the other hand, ICCs of gonial angle (0.583), palatal angle (0.287), U1 to occlusal plane (0.404), U1 to FH plane (0.617) were low respectively. Additionally GA and MPA acquired from 2D were bigger than those on 3D in all 20 patients included in this study. Concordance between one UOPA from 2D and four UOPAs from 3D CT were evaluated by ICC values. Results showed no significant difference among four FH planes defined on 3D CT. Conclusion: FH plane that can be set on 3D CT does not have difference in concordance from FH plane on lateral cephalometry. However, it is desirable to define FH plane on 3D CT with two orbitales and one porion considering the reproduction of orbitale itself.

Keywords

References

  1. van Vlijmen OJ, Berge SJ, Swennen GR, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Comparison of cephalometric radiographs obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans and conventional radiographs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:92-7.
  2. Athanasiou AE. Orthodontic cephalometry. London: Mosby-Wolfe; 1997.
  3. 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
  4. Miller PA, Savara BS, Singh IJ. Analysis of errors in cephalometric measurement of three-dimensional distances on the maxilla. Angle Orthod 1966;36:169-75.
  5. Gravely JF, Benzies PM. The clinical significance of tracing error in cephalometry. Br J Orthod 1974;1:95-101. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.1.3.95
  6. Midtgard J, Bjork G, Linder-Aronson S. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks and errors of measurements of cephalometric cranial distances. Angle Orthod 1974;44:56-61.
  7. 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
  8. Wylie GA, Fish LC, Epker BN. Cephalometrics: a comparison of five analyses currently used in the diagnosis of dentofacial deformities. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1987;2:15-36.
  9. Magalhaes AE, Stella JP, Epker BN. Facial anthropometrics versus cephalometry as predictors for surgical treatment in patients with class III dentofacial deformities. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1995;10:295-302.
  10. Swennen GR, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional virtual approach to diagnosis and treatment planning of maxillo-facial deformity. In: Bell W, ed. Distraction osteogenesis of the facial skeleton. Hamilton, ON: BC Decker Inc; 2007:55.
  11. Maki K, Okano T, Morohashi T, Yamada S, Shibaski Y. The application of three-dimensional quantitative computed tomography to the maxillofacial skeleton. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997;26:39-44. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600220
  12. Vannier MW, Marsh JL, Warren JO. Three dimensional CT reconstruction images for craniofacial surgical planning and evaluation. Radiology 1984;150:179-84. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.150.1.6689758
  13. Trpkova B, Prasad NG, Lam EW, Raboud D, Glover KE, Major PW. Assessment of facial asymmetries from posteroanterior cephalograms: validity of reference lines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:512-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(02)57034-7
  14. Wong RW, Chau AC, Hagg U. 3D CBCT McNamara's cephalometric analysis in an adult southern Chinese population. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;40:920-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2011.03.011
  15. Maeda M, Katsumata A, Ariji Y, Muramatsu A, Yoshida K, Goto S, et al. 3D-CT evaluation of facial asymmetry in patients with maxillofacial deformities. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;102:382-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.10.057
  16. Chebib FS, Chamma AM. Indices of craniofacial asymmetry. Angle Orthod 1981;51:214-26.
  17. Epker BN, Fish LC, Stella JP. Dentofacial deformities: integrated orthodontic and surgical correction. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1998:29-33.
  18. Raustia AM, Salonen MA. Gonial angles and condylar and ramus height of the mandible in complete denture wearers--a panoramic radiograph study. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:512-6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00532.x
  19. Piedra I. The Levandoski panoramic analysis in the diagnosis of facial and dental asymmetries. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1995;20:15-21.
  20. Mattila M, Kononen M, Mattila K. Vertical asymmetry of the mandibular ramus and condylar heights measured with a new method from dental panoramic radiographs in patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Oral Rehabil 1995;22:741-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1995.tb00217.x
  21. Updegrave WJ. Visualizing the mandibular ramus in panoramic radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971;31:422-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(71)90165-4
  22. Yeo DK, Freer TJ, Brockhurst PJ. Distortions in panoramic radiographs. Aust Orthod J 2002;18:92-8.
  23. Cavalcanti MG, Haller JW, Vannier MW. Three-dimensional computed tomography landmark measurement in craniofacial surgical planning: experimental validation in vitro. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:690-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(99)90434-2
  24. Hildebolt CF, Vannier MW, Knapp RH. Validation study of skull three-dimensional computerized tomography measurements. Am J Phys Anthropol 1990;82:283-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330820307
  25. Mulick JF. Clinical use of the frontal headfilm. Angle Orthod 1965;35:299-304.
  26. Yu SH, Nahm DS, Baek SH. Reliability of landmark identification on monitor-displayed lateral cephalometric images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:790.e1-6; discussion e1.

Cited by

  1. Method of Individual Adjustment for 3D CT Analysis: Linear Measurement vol.2016, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6893072
  2. Method of Individual Adjustment for 3D CT Analysis: Linear Measurement vol.2016, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6893072
  3. Discussion : Cephalometric Angular Measurements of the Mandible Using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Scans in Koreans vol.43, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2016.43.1.38