The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of three midsagittal planes for three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography head reorientation

  • Lee, Eon-Hwa (Department of Orthodontics, Korea University Anam Hospital) ;
  • Yu, Hyung-Seog (Department of Orthodontics and The Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Kee-Joon (Department of Orthodontics and The Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Han, Sang-Sun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Jung, Hwi-Dong (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Hwang, Chung-Ju (Department of Orthodontics and The Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • Received : 2019.03.26
  • Accepted : 2019.09.10
  • Published : 2020.01.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This study compared three prominent midsagittal planes (MSPs) to identify the MSP that best approximates the true symmetrical MSP. Methods: Forty-three patients (mean age, 23.0 ± 8.20 years) were grouped as follows: group 1 consisted of 10 patients with skeletal Class I and a menton (Me) deviation of < 2 mm; group 2, 11 patients with skeletal Class III and a Me deviation < 2 mm; group 3, nine patients with skeletal Class III and a Me deviation of 2 to less than 4 mm; and group 4, 13 patients with skeletal Class III and an Me deviation ≥ 4 mm. The candidate MSPs were established by three-dimensional (3D) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) reorientation methods (RMs): (1) the MSP perpendicular to the Frankfort horizontal (FH) plane while passing through the crista galli and basion; (2) the MSP including the nasion, incisive foramen, and basion; (3) the MSP including the nasion, anterior nasal spine, and posterior nasal spine. The mean absolute distances (MADs) to the MSPs were calculated from the coordinates of 1,548 points on 129 CBCT images. The differences in the values of the 3D coordinates among RMs were compared. Results: The MADs of the three RMs showed significant differences (p < 0.05). Most of the differences in values of the coordinates were not significant among RMs. Conclusions: Although the differences in distance among the three MSPs were minor, the MSP perpendicular to the FH plane while passing through the crista galli and basion best approximated the true symmetrical MSP.

Keywords

References

  1. Kim SJ, Lee KJ, Yu HS, Jung YS, Baik HS. Threedimensional effect of pitch, roll, and yaw rotations on maxillomandibular complex movement. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43:264-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2014.11.022
  2. Rohr R. Landmark-based image analysis: using geometric and intensity models. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001.
  3. 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
  4. Andresen PR, Bookstein FL, Conradsen K, Ersboll BK, Marsh JL, Kreiborg S. Surface-bounded growth modeling applied to human mandibles. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2000;19:1053-63. https://doi.org/10.1109/42.896780
  5. da Motta AT, de Assis Ribeiro Carvalho F, Oliveira AE, Cevidanes LH, de Oliveira Almeida MA. Superimposition of 3D cone-beam CT models in orthognathic surgery. Dental Press J Orthod 2010;15:39-41. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512010000200005
  6. Ludlow JB, Gubler M, Cevidanes L, Mol A. Precision of cephalometric landmark identification: conebeam computed tomography vs conventional cephalometric views. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:312.e1-10; discussion 312-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.12.018
  7. Gupta A, Kharbanda OP, Balachandran R, Sardana V, Kalra S, Chaurasia S, et al. Precision of manual landmark identification between as-received and oriented volume-rendered cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:118-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.06.027
  8. 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
  9. Green MN, Bloom JM, Kulbersh R. A simple and accurate craniofacial midsagittal plane definition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;152:355-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.12.025
  10. Shin SM, Kim YM, Kim NR, Choi YS, Park SB, Kim YI. Statistical shape analysis-based determination of optimal midsagittal reference plane for evaluation of facial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:252-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.01.017
  11. Moyers RE, Bookstein FL. The inappropriateness of conventional cephalometrics. Am J Orthod 1979;75:599-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(79)90093-9
  12. Koh EH, Lee KH, Hwang HS. Effects of vertical head rotation on the posteroanterior cephalometric measurements. Korean J Orthod 2003;33:73-84.
  13. Solow B, Tallgren A. Natural head position in standing subjects. Acta Odontol Scand 1971;29:591-607. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357109026337
  14. Cooke MS, Wei SH. The reproducibility of natural head posture: a methodological study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:280-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90157-6
  15. Weber DW, Fallis DW, Packer MD. Three-dimensional reproducibility of natural head position. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:738-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.11.026
  16. Park JU, Kook YA, Kim Y. Assessment of asymmetry in a normal occlusion sample and asymmetric patients with three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography: a study for a transverse reference plane. Angle Orthod 2012;82:860-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/102911-668.1
  17. Miyashita K, Dixon AD. Contemporary cephalometric radiography. Tokyo: Quintessence; 1996.
  18. Jung PK, Lee GC, Moon CH. Comparison of conebeam computed tomography cephalometric measurements using a midsagittal projection and conventional two-dimensional cephalometric measurements. Korean J Orthod 2015;45:282-8. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2015.45.6.282
  19. Naji P, Alsufyani NA, Lagravere MO. Reliability of anatomic structures as landmarks in three-dimensional cephalometric analysis using CBCT. Angle Orthod 2014;84:762-72. https://doi.org/10.2319/090413-652.1
  20. 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
  21. Hwang HS, Hwang CH, Lee KH, Kang BC. Maxillofacial 3-dimensional image analysis for the diagnosis of facial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:779-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.021
  22. Kim HJ, Kim BC, Kim JG, Zhengguo P, Kang SH, Lee SH. Construction and validation of the midsagittal reference plane based on the skull base symmetry for three-dimensional cephalometric craniofacial analysis. J Craniofac Surg 2014;25:338-42. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000380
  23. An S, Lee JY, Chung CJ, Kim KH. Comparison of different midsagittal plane configurations for evaluating craniofacial asymmetry by expert preference. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;152:788-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.04.024
  24. 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
  25. Lou L, Lagravere MO, Compton S, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Accuracy of measurements and reliability of landmark identification with computed tomography (CT) techniques in the maxillofacial area: a systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104:402-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.07.015
  26. Bjehin R. A comparison between the Frankfort horizontal and the sella turcica-nasion as reference planes in cephalometric analysis. Acta Odontol Scand 1957;15:1-12. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016355709041090
  27. Ricketts RM, Schulhof RJ, Bagha L. Orientationsella-nasion or Frankfort horizontal. Am J Orthod 1976;69:648-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(76)90147-0
  28. Severt TR, Proffit WR. The prevalence of facial asymmetry in the dentofacial deformities population at the University of North Carolina. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1997;12:171-6.
  29. 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
  30. Ruellas AC, Tonello C, Gomes LR, Yatabe MS, Macron L, Lopinto J, et al. Common 3-dimensional coordinate system for assessment of directional changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:645-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.10.021

Cited by

  1. Effect of Botulinum Toxin Injection on Asymmetric Lower Face with Chin Deviation vol.12, pp.7, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins12070456
  2. Automatic Cephalometric Landmark Identification System Based on the Multi-Stage Convolutional Neural Networks with CBCT Combination Images vol.21, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/s21020505