Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2014.52.3.222

Comparison of landmark positions between Cone-Beam Computed Tomogram (CBCT) and Adjusted 2D lateral cephalogram  

Son, Soo-Jung (Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University)
Chun, Youn-Sic (Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University)
Kim, Minji (Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.52, no.3, 2014 , pp. 222-232 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to investigate if 2D analysis method is applicable to analysis of CBCT by comparing measuring points of CBCT with those of Adjusted 2D Lateral Cephalogram (Adj-Ceph) with magnification adjusted to 100% and finding out at which landmarks the difference in position appear. Materials and methods: CBCT data and Adj-Ceph (100% magnification) data from 50 adult patients have been extracted as research objects, and the horizontal (Y axis) and vertical (Z axis) coordinates of landmarks were compared. Landmarks have been categorized into 4 groups by the position and whether they are bilaterally overlapped. Paired t-test was used to compare differences between Adj-Ceph and CBCT. Results: Significant difference was found at 11 landmarks including Group B (S, Ar, Ba, PNS), Group C (Po, Or, Hinge axis, Go) and Group D (U1RP, U6CP, L6CP) in the horizontal (Y) axis while all the landmarks in vertical (Z) axis showed significant difference (P<.05). As a result of landmark difference analysis, a meaningful difference with more than 1 mm at 13 landmarks were indentifed in the horizontal axis. In the vertical axis, significant difference over 1 mm was detected from every landmark except Sella. Conclusion: Using the conventional lateral cephalometric measurements on CBCT is insufficient. A new 3D analysis or a modified 2D analysis adjusted on 19 landmarks of the vertical axis and 13 of the horizontal axis are needed when implementing CBCT diagnosis.
Keywords
CBCT; Adjusted lateral cephalogram; Landmark differences;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1981;51:93-114.
2 Broadbent BH. The face of the normal child. Angle Orthod 1937;7:183-208.
3 Brodie AG. On the growth pattern of the human head. From the third month to the eighth year of life. Am J Anat 1941;68:209-62.   DOI
4 Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships; their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 1948;34:812-40.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39:729-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Sassouni V. A roentgenographic cephalometric analysis of cephalo-facio-dental relationships. Am J Orthod 1955;41:735-64.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Tweed CH. Was the development of the diagnostic facial triangle as an accurate analysis based on fact or fancy? Am J Orthod 1962;48:823-40.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Harvold EP. The role of function in the etiology and treatment of malocclusion. Am J Orthod 1968;54:883-98.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Jacobson A. Application of the "Wits" appraisal. Am J Orthod 1976;70:179-89.   DOI
10 Jacobson A. The "Wits" appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod. 1975;67:125-38.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan H, Murphy GA, Norton LA. Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1978;36:269-77.
12 Ricketts RM. Perspectives in the clinical application of cephalometrics. The first fifty years. Angle Orthod 1981;51:115-50.
13 McNamara JA Jr. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod 1984;86:449-69.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Yen PKJ. Identification Of Landmarks In Cephalometric Radiographs. Angle Orthod 1960;30:35-41.
15 Grayson BH, McCarthy JG, Bookstein F. Analysis of craniofacial asymmetry by multiplane cephalometry. Am J Orthod 1983;84:217-24.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971;60:111-27.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 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.
18 Cho HJ. A three-dimensional cephalometric analysis. J Clin Orthod 2009;43:235-52.
19 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Kusnoto B, Evans CA, BeGole EA, de Rijk W. Assessment of 3-dimensional computer-generated cephalometric measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:390-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Dale AM, Robert AD. A Clinician's Guide to Understanding Cone Beam Volumetric Imaging (CBVI). 2007 - [cited 2012 December 20]. Available from:http://www.Ineedce.com/courses/1413/PDF/A_Clin_Gde_ConeBeam.pdf
22 Cavalcanti MG, Vannier MW. Quantitative analysis of spiral computed tomography for craniofacial clinical applications. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998;27:344-50.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Matteson SR, Bechtold W, Phillips C, Staab EV. A method for three-dimensional image reformation for quantitative cephalometric analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989;47:1053-61.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Hildebolt CF, Vannier MW, Knapp RH. Validation study of skull three-dimensional computerized tomography measurements. Am J Phys Anthropol 1990;82:283-94.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Kumar V, Ludlow J, Soares Cevidanes LH, Mol A. In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2008;78:873-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM. Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:291-4.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Grauer D, Cevidanes LS, Styner MA, Heulfe I, Harmon ET, Zhu H, Proffit WR. Accuracy and landmark error calculation using cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2010;80:286-94.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Park JW, Kim NK, Chang YI. Comparison of landmark position between conventional cephalometric radiography and CT scans projected to midsagittal plane. Korean J Orthod 2008;38:427-36.   DOI
29 Terajima M, Yanagita N, Ozeki K, Hoshino Y, Mori N, Goto TK, Tokumori K, Aoki Y, Nakasima A. Three-dimensional analysis system for orthognathic surgery patients with jaw deformities. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:100-11.   DOI
30 Terajima M, Endo M, Aoki Y, Yuuda K, Hayasaki H, Goto TK, Tokumori K, Nakasima A. Four-dimensional analysis of stomatognathic function. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:276-87.   DOI
31 Suri S, Utreja A, Khandelwal N, Mago SK. Craniofacial computerized tomography analysis of the midface of patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:418-29.   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Kau CH, Richmond S. Three-dimensional analysis of facial morphology surface changes in untreated children from 12 to 14 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:751-60.   DOI
33 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Garrett BJ, Caruso JM, Rungcharassaeng K, Farrage JR, Kim JS, Taylor GD. Skeletal effects to the maxilla after rapid maxillary expansion assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:8-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Ballanti F, Lione R, Fanucci E, Franchi L, Baccetti T, Cozza P. Immediate and post-retention effects of rapid maxillary expansion investigated by computed tomography in growing patients. Angle Orthod 2009;79:24-9.   DOI
36 Kragskov J, Bosch C, Gyldensted C, Sindet-Pedersen S. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1997;34:111-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
37 van Vlijmen OJ, Maal TJ, Berge′SJ, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
38 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
39 Marshall D. Interpretation of the posteroanterior skull radiograph- assembly of disarticulated bones. Dent Radiogr Photogr 1969;42:27-35.
40 Salzmann JA. The face in profile: an anthropological x-ray investigation on Swedish children and conscripts by Arne Bjork. Am J Orthod 1948;34:691-9.   DOI
41 Christiansen EL, Thompson JR, Kopp S. Intra- and inter-observer variability and accuracy in the determination of linear and angular measurements in computed tomography. An in vitro and in situ study of human mandibles. Acta Odontol Scand 1986;44:221-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
42 Kim JY, Lee DK, Lee SH. Comparison of the observer reliability of cranial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiograph and three-dimensional computed tomography scans. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;36:262-9.   DOI
43 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.   DOI
44 Kumar V, Ludlow JB, Mol A, Cevidanes L. Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007;36:263-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
45 Phatouros A, Goonewardene MS. Morphologic changes of the palate after rapid maxillary expansion: a 3-dimensional computed tomography evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:117-24.   DOI   ScienceOn