Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Use of an anatomical mid-sagittal plane for 3-dimensional cephalometry: A preliminary study

  • Vernucci, Roberto Antonio (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, School of Dentistry, Sapienza University of Rome) ;
  • Aghazada, Huseynagha (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, School of Dentistry, Sapienza University of Rome) ;
  • Gardini, Kelly (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, School of Dentistry, Sapienza University of Rome) ;
  • Fegatelli, Danilo Alunni (Department of Public Health Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome) ;
  • Barbato, Ersilia (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, School of Dentistry, Sapienza University of Rome) ;
  • Galluccio, Gabriella (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, School of Dentistry, Sapienza University of Rome) ;
  • Silvestri, Alessandro (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, School of Dentistry, Sapienza University of Rome)
  • Received : 2018.08.08
  • Accepted : 2019.02.20
  • Published : 2019.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is widely used for 3-dimensional assessments of cranio-maxillo-facial relationships, especially in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. We have introduced, for reference in CBCT cephalometry, an anatomical mid-sagittal plane (MSP) identified by the nasion, the midpoint between the posterior clinoid processes of the sella turcica, and the basion. The MSP is an updated version of the median plane previously used at our institution for 2D posterior-anterior cephalometry. This study was conducted to test the accuracy of the CBCT measures compared to those obtained using standard posterior-anterior cephalometry. Materials and Methods: Two operators measured the inter-zygomatic distance on 15 CBCT scans using the MSP as a reference plane, and the CBCT measurements were compared with measurements made on patients' posterior-anterior cephalograms. The statistical analysis evaluated the absolute and percentage differences between the 3D and 2D measurements. Results: As demonstrated by the absolute mean difference (roughly 1 mm) and the percentage difference (less than 3%), the MSP showed good accuracy on CBCT compared to the 2D plane, especially for measurements of the left side. However, the CBCT measurements showed a high standard deviation, indicating major variability and low precision. Conclusion: The anatomical MSP can be used as a reliable reference plane for transverse measurements in 3D cephalometry in cases of symmetrical or asymmetrical malocclusion. In patients who suffer from distortions of the skull base, the identification of landmarks might be difficult and the MSP could be unreliable. Becoming familiar with the relevant software could reduce errors and improve reliability.

Keywords

References

  1. Mah JK, Huang JC, Choo H. Practical applications of conebeam computed tomography in orthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc 2010; 141 Suppl 3: 7S-13S. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2010.0361
  2. Zamora N, Llamas JM, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. A study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks when undertaking a three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analysis. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012; 17: e678-88.
  3. Langlade M. Cephalometrie orthodontique. Paris: Maloine; 1978.
  4. Grauer D, Cevidanes LS, Proffit WR. Working with DICOM craniofacial images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 460-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.04.016
  5. Olszewski R, Tanesy O, Cosnard G, Zech F, Reychler H. Reproducibility of osseous landmarks used for computed tomography based three-dimensional cephalometric analyses. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010; 38: 214-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2009.05.005
  6. Nur RB, Cakan DG, Arun T. Evaluation of facial hard and soft tissue asymmetry using cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 149: 225-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.038
  7. Rossini G, Cavallini C, Cassetta M, Barbato E. 3D cephalometric analysis obtained from computed tomography. Review of the literature. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2011; 2: 31-9.
  8. Olszewski R, Zech F, Cosnard G, Nicolas V, Macq B, Reychler H. Three-dimensional computed tomography cephalometric craniofacial analysis: experimental validation in vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 36: 828-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2007.05.022
  9. Moreira CR, Sales MA, Lopes PM, Cavalcanti MG. Assessment of linear and angular measurements on three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographic images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 108: 430-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.01.032
  10. van Vlijmen OJ, Maal T, Berge SJ, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. 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
  11. Cascone P, De Ponte F, Schaerf M. Cephalometric analysis in maxillofacial surgery. A proposed computerized analysis in antero-postero projection for study of maxillofacial abnormalities. Mondo Ortod 1987; 12: 97-106.
  12. Damstra J, Fourie Z, De Wit M, Ren Y. A three-dimensional comparison of a morphometric and conventional cephalometric midsagittal planes for craniofacial asymmetry. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16: 285-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0512-4
  13. Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31: 129-34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn088
  14. Berco M, Rigali PH Jr, Miner RM, DeLuca S, Anderson NK, Will LA. Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 17.e1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.03.027
  15. Periago DR, Scarfe WC, Moshiri M, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 387-95. https://doi.org/10.2319/122106-52.1
  16. Moro A, Correra P, Boniello R, Gasparini G, Pelo S. Three-dimensional analysis in facial asymmetry: comparison with model analysis and conventional two-dimensional analysis. J Craniofac Surg 2009; 20: 417-22. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31819b96a5
  17. Enlow DH, Hans MG. Essentials of facial growth. Philadelphia: WS Saunders Co.; 1996.
  18. De Coster L. A new line of reference for the study of lateral facial teleradiographs. Am J Orthod 1953; 39: 304-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(53)90142-0
  19. Farkas LG. Anthropometry of the head and face. 2nd ed. New York: Raven Press; 1994.
  20. Kwon TG, Park HS, Ryoo HM, Lee SH. A comparison of craniofacial morphology in patients with and without facial asymmetry - a three-dimensional analysis with computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 35: 43-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2005.04.006
  21. Schlicher W, Nielsen I, Huang JC, Maki K, Hatcher DC, Miller AJ. Consistency and precision of landmark identification in three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography scans. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34: 263-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq144
  22. Lagravere MO, Low C, Flores-Mir C, Chung R, Carey JP, Heo G, et al. Intraexaminer and interexaminer reliabilities of landmark identification on digitized lateral cephalograms and formatted 3-dimensional cone-beam computerized tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 598-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.018
  23. de Oliveira AE, Cevidanes LH, Phillips C, Motta A, Burke B, Tyndall D. Observer reliability of three-dimensional cephalometric landmark identification on cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: 256-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.05.039
  24. Eliades T. Research methods in orthodontics: a guide to understanding orthodontic research. Heidelberg: Springer; 2013.
  25. Gribel BF, Gribel MN, Frazao DC, McNamara JA Jr, Manzi FR. Accuracy and reliability of craniometric measurements on lateral cephalometry and 3D measurements on CBCT scans. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 26-35. https://doi.org/10.2319/032210-166.1
  26. Neiva MB, Soares AC, Lisboa Cde O, Vilella Ode V, Motta AT. Evaluation of cephalometric landmark identification on CBCT multiplanar and 3D reconstructions. Angle Orthod 2015; 85: 11-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/120413-891.1
  27. Fernandes TM, Adamczyk J, Poleti ML, Henriques JF, Friedland B, Garib DG. Comparison between 3D volumetric rendering and multiplanar slices on the reliability of linear measurements on CBCT images: an in vitro study. J Appl Oral Sci 2015; 23: 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720130445
  28. Cassetta M, Altieri F, Di Giorgio R, Silvestri A. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional cephalometry using cone beam computed tomography scans. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26: e311-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001700
  29. 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
  30. Lee ST, Choi NR, Song JM, Shin SH. Three-dimensional morphometric analysis of mandibule in coronal plane after bimaxillary rotational surgery. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 38: 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-016-0096-7
  31. Muramatsu A, Nawa H, Kimura M, Yoshida K, Maeda M, Katsumata A, et al. Reproducibility of maxillofacial anatomic landmarks on 3-dimensional computed tomographic images determined with the 95% confidence ellipse method. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 396-402. https://doi.org/10.2319/040207-166.1

Cited by

  1. Familiar occurrence of facial asymmetry: a pilot study vol.69, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.23736/s0026-4970.20.04346-0
  2. Artificial intelligence in oral and maxillofacial radiology: what is currently possible? vol.50, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20200375