OBJECTIVE: To evaluate systematic differences in landmark position between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-generated cephalograms and conventional digital cephalograms and to estimate how much variability should be taken into account when both modalities are used within the same longitudinal study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Landmarks on homologous cone-beam computed tomographic-generated cephalograms and conventional digital cephalograms of 46 patients were digitized, registered, and compared via the Hotelling T(2) test. RESULTS: There were no systematic differences between modalities in the position of most landmarks. Three landmarks showed statistically significant differences but did not reach clinical significance. A method for error calculation while combining both modalities in the same individual is presented. CONCLUSION: In a longitudinal follow-up for assessment of treatment outcomes and growth of one individual, the error due to the combination of the two modalities might be larger than previously estimated.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate systematic differences in landmark position between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-generated cephalograms and conventional digital cephalograms and to estimate how much variability should be taken into account when both modalities are used within the same longitudinal study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Landmarks on homologous cone-beam computed tomographic-generated cephalograms and conventional digital cephalograms of 46 patients were digitized, registered, and compared via the Hotelling T(2) test. RESULTS: There were no systematic differences between modalities in the position of most landmarks. Three landmarks showed statistically significant differences but did not reach clinical significance. A method for error calculation while combining both modalities in the same individual is presented. CONCLUSION: In a longitudinal follow-up for assessment of treatment outcomes and growth of one individual, the error due to the combination of the two modalities might be larger than previously estimated.
Authors: John B Ludlow; William Stewart Laster; Meit See; L'Tanya J Bailey; H Garland Hershey Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2006-08-04
Authors: Olivier J C van Vlijmen; Frits A Rangel; Stefaan J Bergé; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Alfred G Becking; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2010-07-17 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: O Ibáñez; F Cavalli; B R Campomanes-Álvarez; C Campomanes-Álvarez; A Valsecchi; M I Huete Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: Ricardo de Lima Navarro; Paula Vanessa Pedron Oltramari-Navarro; Thais Maria Freire Fernandes; Giovani Fidelis de Oliveira; Ana Cláudia de Castro Ferreira Conti; Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida; Renato Rodrigues de Almeida Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.698