Literature DB >> 24485730

Comparison of cephalometric measurements and cone-beam computed tomography-based measurements of palatal bone thickness.

Young-Jae Kim1, Sung-Hoon Lim2, Sung-Nam Gang3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships between cephalometric measurements and cone-beam computed tomography-based measurements of the palatal bone thickness.
METHODS: Thirty sets of cone-beam computed tomography images and lateral cephalograms were used. Palatal bone thicknesses were measured anteroposteriorly from between the first and second premolars to between the first and second molars using both imaging methods, and also laterally from 1.5 mm off-center to 10 mm off-center in the cone-beam computed tomography images. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to examine the differences between the measurements.
RESULTS: Bland-Altman plots showed that the 95% limits of agreement were smallest at 5 mm off-center (-0.2 ± 1.7 mm). The 5-mm off-center measurements were the only ones for which there were no statistically significant differences compared with the cephalometric measurements in all anteroposterior areas. The measurements at 1.5 mm off-center were significantly thicker than the cephalometric measurements only from the area between the second premolar and the first molar to the area between the first and second molars.
CONCLUSIONS: Among the areas measured, the bone at 5 mm off-center is most likely to be depicted in cephalograms as palatal bone contours.
Copyright © 2014 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24485730     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.10.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  5 in total

1.  Class II subdivision with skeletal transverse maxillary deficit treated by single-sitting bone-borne appliance.

Authors:  Luca Lombardo; Mario Palone; Giuliano Maino; Emanuele Paoletto; Antonella Carlucci; Giuseppe Siciliani
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Radiological evaluation of the bone and soft tissue thicknesses of the palate for using a miniscrew-supported maxillary skeletal expander.

Authors:  Sun-Kyoung Yu; Yonghwa Cho; Yo-Seob Seo; Jae-Sung Kim; Do Kyung Kim; Heung-Joong Kim
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 1.246

3.  Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors.

Authors:  Diyang Wei; Lingyun Zhang; Weiran Li; Yilin Jia
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2020-06-01

4.  Risk of root damage after using lateral cephalogram and intraoral scan for guided insertion of palatal miniscrews.

Authors:  Manuel Nienkemper; Björn Ludwig
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2022-09-03       Impact factor: 2.246

5.  RFA measurements of survival midpalatal orthodontic mini-implants in comparison to initial healing period.

Authors:  Manuel Nienkemper; Jan H Willmann; Kathrin Becker; Dieter Drescher
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 2.750

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.