Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cephalometric Angular Measurements of the Mandible Using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Scans in Koreans

  • Kim, Yong Hyun (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kang, Seok Joo (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine) ;
  • Sun, Hook (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2015.03.13
  • Accepted : 2015.06.19
  • Published : 2016.01.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background We conducted this study to analyze the values of the key cephalometric angular measurements of the mandible using 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography scans. Methods In the 106 enrolled patients, a 3D cephalometric analysis was performed to measure the angular variables of the mandible. These values were compared between the two sides and between the two sexes. Results The frontal measurements revealed that the mandibular body curve angle was larger on the left (Lt) side (right [Rt], $141.24{\pm}7.54$; Lt, $142.68{\pm}6.94$; P=0.002) and the gonial angle was larger on the right side (Rt, $134.37{\pm}8.44$; Lt, $131.54{\pm}7.14$; P<0.001). The sagittal measurements showed that the gonial angle was larger on the right side (Rt, $134.37{\pm}8.44$; Lt, $131.54{\pm}7.14$; P>0.05). Further, the transverse measurements revealed that the mandibular body curve angle was larger on the right side (Rt, $140.28{\pm}7.05$; Lt, $137.56{\pm}6.23$; P<0.001). Conclusions These results provide an average of the mandibular angular measurements for the Korean population, establishing a standard for determining surgical patient groups and outcome evaluations in the field of mandible contour surgery.

Keywords

References

  1. Jegal JJ, Kang SJ, Kim JW, et al. The utility of a three-dimensional approach with T-shaped osteotomy in osseous genioplasty. Arch Plast Surg 2013;40:433-9. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2013.40.4.433
  2. Wang Y, Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Applying the concepts of innovation strategies to plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;132:483-90. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182958c9a
  3. Szychta P, Rykala J, Kruk-Jeromin J. Individual and ethnic aspects of preoperative planning for posttraumatic rhinoplasty. Eur J Plast Surg 2011;34:245-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-010-0502-9
  4. Pacini SJ. Roentgen ray anthropometry of the skull. J Radiogr 1922;3:230-8.
  5. Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1931;1:45-66.
  6. Kapila S, Conley RS, Harrell WE Jr. The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40:24-34. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/12615645
  7. Oz U, Orhan K, Abe N. Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40:492-500. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/15644321
  8. Liedke GS, Delamare EL, Vizzotto MB, et al. Comparative study between conventional and cone beam CT-synthesized half and total skull cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41:136-42. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/22287302
  9. Cevidanes LH, Styner MA, Proffit WR. Image analysis and superimposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129:611-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.008
  10. Lin HH, Chuang YF, Weng JL, et al. Comparative validity and reproducibility study of various landmark-oriented reference planes in 3-dimensional computed tomographic analysis for patients receiving orthognathic surgery. PLoS One 2015;10:e0117604. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117604
  11. van Vlijmen OJ, Maal T, Berge SJ, et al. A comparison between 2D and 3D cephalometry on CBCT scans of human skulls. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;39:156-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2009.11.017
  12. van Vlijmen OJ, Kuijpers MA, Berge SJ, et al. Evidence supporting the use of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc 2012;143:241-52. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0148
  13. Farronato G, Garagiola U, Dominici A, et al. "Ten-point" 3D cephalometric analysis using low-dosage cone beam computed tomography. Prog Orthod 2010;11:2-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pio.2010.04.007
  14. Lee SH, Kil TJ, Park KR, et al. Three-dimensional architectural and structural analysis: a transition in concept and design from Delaire’s cephalometric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;43:1154-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.03.012
  15. Bayome M, Park JH, Kook YA. New three-dimensional cephalometric analyses among adults with a skeletal Class I pattern and normal occlusion. Korean J Orthod 2013;43: 62-73. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2013.43.2.62
  16. Hofer SO, Payne CE. Functional and Aesthetic Outcome Enhancement of Head and Neck Reconstruction through Secondary Procedures. Semin Plast Surg 2010;24:309-18. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1263072
  17. Schaaf H, Malik CY, Howaldt HP, et al. Evolution of photography in maxillofacial surgery: from analog to 3D photography - an overview. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2009;1: 39-45. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S6760
  18. Shahidi S, Oshagh M, Gozin F, et al. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks by a designed software. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42: 20110187. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20110187
  19. Lin HS, Li JD, Chen YJ, et al. Comparison of measurements of mandible growth using cone beam computed tomography and its synthesized cephalograms. Biomed Eng Online 2014;13:133. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-925X-13-133
  20. Xia JJ, Gateno J, Teichgraeber JF. New clinical protocol to evaluate craniomaxillofacial deformity and plan surgical correction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:2093-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.04.057
  21. van Vlijmen OJ, Maal TJ, Berge SJ, et al. A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional cephalometry on frontal radiographs and on cone beam computed tomography scans of human skulls. Eur J Oral Sci 2009;117: 300-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2009.00633.x
  22. Oh S, Kim CY, Hong J. A comparative study between data obtained from conventional lateral cephalometry and reconstructed three-dimensional computed tomography images. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;40:123-9. https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2014.40.3.123
  23. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A, et al. Craniofacial morphometry by photographic evaluations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:327-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(93)70013-E
  24. Medelnik J, Hertrich K, Steinhauser-Andresen S, et al. Accuracy of anatomical landmark identification using different CBCT- and MSCT-based 3D images: an in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop 2011;72:261-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-011-0032-5

Cited by

  1. Additional aesthetic surgery that can be performed with orthognathic surgery vol.25, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2019.08.009
  2. Analysis of hard tissue facial symmetry after unilateral mandibular reconstruction vol.43, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-021-00299-2