OBJECTIVE: To compare the reproducibility of landmark identification on three-dimensional (3D) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images between procedures based on traditional cephalometric definitions (procedure 1) and those tentatively proposed for 3D images (procedure 2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A phantom with embedded dried human skull was scanned using CBCT. The acquired volume data were transferred to a personal computer, and 3D images were reconstructed. Eighteen dentists plotted nine landmarks related to the jaws and teeth four times: menton (Me), pogonion (Po), upper-1 (U1), lower-1 (L1), left upper-6 (U6), left lower-6 (L6), gonion (Go), condyle (Cd), and coronoid process (Cp). The plotting reliabilities of the two procedures were compared by calculating standard deviations (SDs) in three components (x, y, and z) of coordinates and volumes of 95% confidence ellipsoid. RESULTS: All 27 SDs for procedure 2 were less than 1 mm, and only five of them exceeded 0.5 mm. The variations were significantly different between the two procedures, and the SDs of procedure 2 were smaller than those of procedure 1 in 21 components of coordinates. The ellipsoid volumes were also smaller for procedure 2 than procedure 1, although a significant difference was not found. CONCLUSIONS: Definitions determined strictly on each three sectional images, such as for procedure 2, were required for sufficient reliability in identifying the landmark related to the jaws and teeth.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the reproducibility of landmark identification on three-dimensional (3D) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images between procedures based on traditional cephalometric definitions (procedure 1) and those tentatively proposed for 3D images (procedure 2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A phantom with embedded dried human skull was scanned using CBCT. The acquired volume data were transferred to a personal computer, and 3D images were reconstructed. Eighteen dentists plotted nine landmarks related to the jaws and teeth four times: menton (Me), pogonion (Po), upper-1 (U1), lower-1 (L1), left upper-6 (U6), left lower-6 (L6), gonion (Go), condyle (Cd), and coronoid process (Cp). The plotting reliabilities of the two procedures were compared by calculating standard deviations (SDs) in three components (x, y, and z) of coordinates and volumes of 95% confidence ellipsoid. RESULTS: All 27 SDs for procedure 2 were less than 1 mm, and only five of them exceeded 0.5 mm. The variations were significantly different between the two procedures, and the SDs of procedure 2 were smaller than those of procedure 1 in 21 components of coordinates. The ellipsoid volumes were also smaller for procedure 2 than procedure 1, although a significant difference was not found. CONCLUSIONS: Definitions determined strictly on each three sectional images, such as for procedure 2, were required for sufficient reliability in identifying the landmark related to the jaws and teeth.
Authors: Ana Emilia F de Oliveira; Lucia Helena S Cevidanes; Ceib Phillips; Alexandre Motta; Brandon Burke; Donald Tyndall Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2008-08-20
Authors: R A Katkar; C Kummet; D Dawson; L Moreno Uribe; V Allareddy; M Finkelstein; A Ruprecht Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Joorok Park; Sheldon Baumrind; Sean Curry; Sean K Carlson; Robert L Boyd; Heesoo Oh Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 2.079