Liliane Rosas Gomes1, Marcelo Regis Gomes2, João Roberto Gonçalves3, Antônio Carlos O Ruellas4, Larry M Wolford5, Beatriz Paniagua6, Erika Benavides7, Lúcia Helena Soares Cevidanes8. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Faculdade de Odontologia de Araraquara, UNESP Universidade Estadual Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: lilianerosas@hotmail.com. 2. Private practice, Salvador, BA, Brazil. 3. Department of Orthodontics, Faculdade de Odontologia de Araraquara, UNESP Universidade Estadual Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Orthodontics, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 5. Departments of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Orthodontics Texas, A&M University Health Science Center Baylor College of Dentistry, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 6. Research Assistant Professor at the Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 7. Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 8. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively compare condylar morphology using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multislice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) virtual three-dimensional surface models. STUDY DESIGN: The sample consisted of secondary data analyses of CBCT and MSCT scans obtained for clinical purposes from 74 patients treated with condylar resection and prosthetic joint replacement. Three-dimensional surface models of 146 condyles were constructed from each scan modality. Across-subject models were approximated and voxel-based registration was performed between homologous CBCT and MSCT images, making it possible to create average CBCT- and MSCT-based condylar models. SPHARM-PDM software provided matching points on each corresponding model. ShapeAnalysisMANCOVA software assessed statistically significant differences between observers and imaging modalities. One-sample t-tests evaluated the null hypothesis that the mean differences between each CBCT- and MSCT-based model were not clinically significant (<.5 mm). Tests were conducted at a significance level of P < .05. RESULTS: ShapeAnalysisMANCOVA showed no statistically significant difference between the average CBCT- and MSCT-based models (P > .68). During pairwise comparison, the mean difference observed was .406 mm (SD, .173). One sample t-test showed that mean differences between each set of paired CBCT- and MSCT-based models were not clinically significant (P = .411). CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional surface models constructed from CBCT images are comparable to those derived from MSCT scans and may be considered reliable tools for assessing condylar morphology.
OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively compare condylar morphology using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multislice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) virtual three-dimensional surface models. STUDY DESIGN: The sample consisted of secondary data analyses of CBCT and MSCT scans obtained for clinical purposes from 74 patients treated with condylar resection and prosthetic joint replacement. Three-dimensional surface models of 146 condyles were constructed from each scan modality. Across-subject models were approximated and voxel-based registration was performed between homologous CBCT and MSCT images, making it possible to create average CBCT- and MSCT-based condylar models. SPHARM-PDM software provided matching points on each corresponding model. ShapeAnalysisMANCOVA software assessed statistically significant differences between observers and imaging modalities. One-sample t-tests evaluated the null hypothesis that the mean differences between each CBCT- and MSCT-based model were not clinically significant (<.5 mm). Tests were conducted at a significance level of P < .05. RESULTS: ShapeAnalysisMANCOVA showed no statistically significant difference between the average CBCT- and MSCT-based models (P > .68). During pairwise comparison, the mean difference observed was .406 mm (SD, .173). One sample t-test showed that mean differences between each set of paired CBCT- and MSCT-based models were not clinically significant (P = .411). CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional surface models constructed from CBCT images are comparable to those derived from MSCT scans and may be considered reliable tools for assessing condylar morphology.
Authors: Gabriela Salatino Liedke; Heloísa Emília Dias da Silveira; Heraldo Luis Dias da Silveira; Vinícius Dutra; José Antônio Poli de Figueiredo Journal: J Endod Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: L H S Cevidanes; A-K Hajati; B Paniagua; P F Lim; D G Walker; G Palconet; A G Nackley; M Styner; J B Ludlow; H Zhu; C Phillips Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2010-04-09
Authors: Paula Loureiro Cheib; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes; Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas; Lorenzo Franchi; Wagner Fernando Moyses Braga; Dauro Oliveira; Bernardo Quiroga Souki Journal: Turk J Orthod Date: 2016-06-01