OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of linear measurements obtained from reconstructed spiral CT images of human dry skulls in three planes by comparing them with direct skull measurements, and then to compare these with measurements made on photostimulable phosphor cephalograms. METHODS: Using a Siemens Somatom Sensation spiral CT scanner (Munich, Germany), CT images of six human dry skulls were imported into imaging software (Mimics 11.02 Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) and the measurements made were compared to the direct measurements made using a digital calliper (500-171, CD-6C, Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan). The measurements were also compared to those made on frontal and lateral cephalograms taken using a digital cephalostat (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland). The mean of the 15 linear measurements obtained were compared using the paired Student's t-test. RESULTS: CT measurements did not show a significant difference from the direct skull measurements (P < 0.05) in all three planes except for two midsagittal measurements in the anteroposterior plane. Cephalometric measurements were comparable to direct skull measurements for midsagittal measurements in the anteroposterior plane, but showed a significant difference when bilateral measurements were considered. Cephalometric measurements also showed a significant difference in the transverse plane from direct measurements and CT measurements; however, they did not display a significant difference between direct skull measurements and CT measurements for most parameters in the vertical plane. CONCLUSION: Linear measurements on the spiral CT were comparable to anatomical measurements and were more reliable than cephalometric measurements. Cephalometric measurements were acceptable for midsagittal measurements in the anteroposterior plane, but showed a significant variation from anatomical and CT measurements in most other parameters.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of linear measurements obtained from reconstructed spiral CT images of human dry skulls in three planes by comparing them with direct skull measurements, and then to compare these with measurements made on photostimulable phosphor cephalograms. METHODS: Using a Siemens Somatom Sensation spiral CT scanner (Munich, Germany), CT images of six human dry skulls were imported into imaging software (Mimics 11.02 Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) and the measurements made were compared to the direct measurements made using a digital calliper (500-171, CD-6C, Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan). The measurements were also compared to those made on frontal and lateral cephalograms taken using a digital cephalostat (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland). The mean of the 15 linear measurements obtained were compared using the paired Student's t-test. RESULTS: CT measurements did not show a significant difference from the direct skull measurements (P < 0.05) in all three planes except for two midsagittal measurements in the anteroposterior plane. Cephalometric measurements were comparable to direct skull measurements for midsagittal measurements in the anteroposterior plane, but showed a significant difference when bilateral measurements were considered. Cephalometric measurements also showed a significant difference in the transverse plane from direct measurements and CT measurements; however, they did not display a significant difference between direct skull measurements and CT measurements for most parameters in the vertical plane. CONCLUSION: Linear measurements on the spiral CT were comparable to anatomical measurements and were more reliable than cephalometric measurements. Cephalometric measurements were acceptable for midsagittal measurements in the anteroposterior plane, but showed a significant variation from anatomical and CT measurements in most other parameters.
Authors: Gregory L Adams; Stuart A Gansky; Arthur J Miller; William E Harrell; David C Hatcher Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Michael L Hilgers; William C Scarfe; James P Scheetz; Allan G Farman Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Danielle R Periago; William C Scarfe; Mazyar Moshiri; James P Scheetz; Anibal M Silveira; Allan G Farman Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: T M Präger; H G Brochhagen; R Mischkowski; P-G Jost-Brinkmann; R Müller-Hartwich Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 1.938
Authors: T M Präger; H G Brochhagen; R Mischkowski; P G Jost-Brinkmann; R Müller-Hartwich Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 1.938
Authors: Thomas Michael Präger; Hans Georg Brochhagen; Axel Mußler; Robert Mischkowski; Paul-Georg Jost-Brinkmann; Ralf Müller-Hartwich Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2013-08-25 Impact factor: 1.938
Authors: Dena Sawchuk; Kris Currie; Manuel Lagravere Vich; Juan Martin Palomo; Carlos Flores-Mir Journal: Korean J Orthod Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 1.372