Literature DB >> 22777473

Cone-beam computed tomography: accuracy of three-dimensional cephalometry analysis and influence of patient scanning position.

Gianluigi Frongia1, Maria Grazia Piancino, Pietro Bracco.   

Abstract

The aim of this research was to analyze the influence of the position of the skull during cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan and if the three-dimensional cephalometric measurements are influenced by skull orientation during CBCT scan.The study consisted of 5 CBCT scanning (KODAK 9500 Cone Beam 3D System unit) in 5 different positions of a dry skull. The data were imported in SIMPLANT OMS Software version 13.0. Fifteen three-dimensional cephalometric measurements were calculated; moreover, the mean, the SD, the maximum/minimum Δ, and the maximum/minimum Δ percentage were calculated. The statistical analysis was performed by an independent-samples t-test to evaluate differences between the 5 scans.No difference was found in all the three-dimensional analysis. Twelve of 15 measurements have a Δ greater than 1.5, and 7 of 15 measurements have a Δ greater than 2. Nine of 15 have a Δ percentage greater than 5%. The preliminary results suggest that the three-dimensional cephalometric analysis is influenced by patient scanning position.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22777473     DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e318252d5e1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniofac Surg        ISSN: 1049-2275            Impact factor:   1.046


  9 in total

1.  "Black Bone" MRI: a potential non-ionizing method for three-dimensional cephalometric analysis--a preliminary feasibility study.

Authors:  K A Eley; S R Watt-Smith; S J Golding
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  Reliability of anatomic structures as landmarks in three-dimensional cephalometric analysis using CBCT.

Authors:  Pegah Naji; Noura A Alsufyani; Manuel O Lagravère
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-12-23       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Evaluation of linear measurements of implant sites based on head orientation during acquisition: An ex vivo study using cone-beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Hanadi Sabban; Mina Mahdian; Ajay Dhingra; Alan G Lurie; Aditya Tadinada
Journal:  Imaging Sci Dent       Date:  2015-06-19

4.  KPG index versus OPG measurements: a comparison between 3D and 2D methods in predicting treatment duration and difficulty level for patients with impacted maxillary canines.

Authors:  Domenico Dalessandri; Marco Migliorati; Luca Visconti; Luca Contardo; Chung How Kau; Conchita Martin
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Influence of Head Position on the CBCT Accuracy in Assessment of the Proximity of the Root Apices to the Inferior Alveolar Canal.

Authors:  Sadaf Adibi; Shoaleh Shahidi; Saeed Nikanjam; Maryam Paknahad; Mohammadali Ranjbar
Journal:  J Dent (Shiraz)       Date:  2017-09

6.  Reliability of a novel CBCT-based 3D classification system for maxillary canine impactions in orthodontics: the KPG index.

Authors:  Domenico Dalessandri; Marco Migliorati; Rachele Rubiano; Luca Visconti; Luca Contardo; Roberto Di Lenarda; Conchita Martin
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2013-10-09

7.  Soft tissue coverage on the segmentation accuracy of the 3D surface-rendered model from cone-beam CT.

Authors:  J K Dusseldorp; H C Stamatakis; Y Ren
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-05-21       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  Effect of slice inclination and object position within the field of view on the measurement accuracy of potential implant sites on cone-beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Bardia Vadiati Saberi; Negar Khosravifard; Alireza Nourzadeh
Journal:  Imaging Sci Dent       Date:  2020-03-17

9.  The Reliability of Two- and Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Measurements: A CBCT Study.

Authors:  Chenshuang Li; Hellen Teixeira; Nipul Tanna; Zhong Zheng; Stephanie Hsiang Yi Chen; Min Zou; Chun-Hsi Chung
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-07
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.