U Oz1, K Orhan, N Abe. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Near East University, Mersin, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the linear and angular measurements made on two-dimensional (2D) conventional cephalometric images and three-dimensional (3D) cone beam CT (CBCT) generated cephalograms derived from a 3D volumetric rendering program. METHODS: Pre-treatment cephalometric digital radiographs of 11 patients and their corresponding CBCT images were randomly selected. The digital cephalometric radiographs were traced using Vista Dent OC (GAC International, Inc Bohemia, NY) and by hand. CBCT and Maxilim® (Medicim, Sint-Niklass, Belgium) software were used to generate cephalograms from the CBCT data set that were then linked to the 3D hard-tissue surface representations. In total, 16 cephalometric landmarks were identified and 18 widely used measurements (11 linear and 7 angular) were performed by 2 independent observers. Intraobserver reliability was assessed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), interobserver reliability was assessed with Student t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Mann-Whitney U-tests and Kruskal-Wallis H tests were also used to compare the three methods (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The results demonstrated no statistically significant difference between interobserver analyses for CBCT-generated cephalograms (P < 0.05), except for Gonion-Menton (Go-Me) and Condylion-Gnathion (Co-Gn). Intraobserver examinations showed low ICCs, which was an indication of poor reproducibility for Go-Me and Sella-Nasion (S-N) in CBCT-generated cephalograms and poor reproducibility for Articulare-Gonion (Ar-Go) in the 2D hand tracing method (P < 0.05). No statistical significance was found for Vista Dent OC measurements (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Measurements from in vivo CBCT-generated cephalograms from Maxilim® software were found to be similar to conventional images. Thus, owing to higher radiation exposure, CBCT examinations should only be used when the inherent 3D information could improve the outcome of treatment.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the linear and angular measurements made on two-dimensional (2D) conventional cephalometric images and three-dimensional (3D) cone beam CT (CBCT) generated cephalograms derived from a 3D volumetric rendering program. METHODS: Pre-treatment cephalometric digital radiographs of 11 patients and their corresponding CBCT images were randomly selected. The digital cephalometric radiographs were traced using Vista Dent OC (GAC International, Inc Bohemia, NY) and by hand. CBCT and Maxilim® (Medicim, Sint-Niklass, Belgium) software were used to generate cephalograms from the CBCT data set that were then linked to the 3D hard-tissue surface representations. In total, 16 cephalometric landmarks were identified and 18 widely used measurements (11 linear and 7 angular) were performed by 2 independent observers. Intraobserver reliability was assessed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), interobserver reliability was assessed with Student t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Mann-Whitney U-tests and Kruskal-Wallis H tests were also used to compare the three methods (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The results demonstrated no statistically significant difference between interobserver analyses for CBCT-generated cephalograms (P < 0.05), except for Gonion-Menton (Go-Me) and Condylion-Gnathion (Co-Gn). Intraobserver examinations showed low ICCs, which was an indication of poor reproducibility for Go-Me and Sella-Nasion (S-N) in CBCT-generated cephalograms and poor reproducibility for Articulare-Gonion (Ar-Go) in the 2D hand tracing method (P < 0.05). No statistical significance was found for Vista Dent OC measurements (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Measurements from in vivo CBCT-generated cephalograms from Maxilim® software were found to be similar to conventional images. Thus, owing to higher radiation exposure, CBCT examinations should only be used when the inherent 3D information could improve the outcome of treatment.
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: Moschos A Papadopoulos; Christina Jannowitz; Peter Boettcher; Julia Henke; Rudolf Stolla; Hans-Florian Zeilhofer; Laszlo Kovacs; Wolf Erhardt; Edgar Biemer; Nikolaos A Papadopulos Journal: J Craniomaxillofac Surg Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 2.078
Authors: Zhenqi Zhao; Lizhe Xie; Dan Cao; Iman Izadikhah; Pengcheng Gao; Yang Zhao; Bin Yan Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 2.419