Literature DB >> 30779676

The relationship between 3D dentofacial photogrammetry measurements and traditional cephalometric measurements.

Jose C Castillo, Grace Gianneschi, Demyana Azer, Amornrut Manosudprasit, Arshan Haghi, Neetu Bansal, Veerasathpurush Allareddy, Mohamed I Masoud.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between traditional cephalometric measurements and corresponding nonradiographic three-dimensional (3D) photogrammetry measurements.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of 20 orthodontic patients (10 male and 10 female) who received lateral cephalometric radiographs and 3D dentofacial photogrammetric records with each subject serving as his or her own control for a total sample size of 40 images (20 per method). A 3D analysis that resembled a traditional cephalometric analysis was established using the eyes and natural head orientation as substitutes for the cranial base. Pearson correlation coefficients and multivariable linear regression plots were calculated to evaluate the relationship between the photogrammetry measurements and the cephalometric measurements.
RESULTS: The ANB angle, mandibular plane angle, lower anterior face height, upper incisor angle to SN, upper incisor angle to NA, and all measurements of lower incisor position and inclination had strong positive Pearson correlation coefficients with the corresponding 3D photogrammetry measurements ( P < .004). Statistically significant regression plots demonstrated that cephalometric relationships between the jaws and incisor orientation can be predicted from corresponding 3D photogrammetry measurements.
CONCLUSIONS: 3D photogrammetry measurements relating the jaws to each other and incisor orientation has a strong positive correlation with corresponding traditional cephalometric measurements and can serve as cephalometric predictors. Capturing the eyes using 3D photogrammetry can obviate the need to expose the cranial base and allow limiting the radiographic field to the area of interest.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D photogrammetry; Cephalometrics; Dentofacial imaging; Eyes; Orthodontic diagnosis

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30779676      PMCID: PMC8120891          DOI: 10.2319/120317-825.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  34 in total

1.  Radiographic examinations as an aid to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning.

Authors:  A Bruks; K Enberg; I Nordqvist; A S Hansson; L Jansson; B Svenson
Journal:  Swed Dent J       Date:  1999

2.  New norms for the mesh diagram analysis.

Authors:  C F Moorrees; M E uan Venrooij; L M Lebret; C G Glatky; R L Kent; R B Reed
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1976-01

3.  Orthodontic radiography guidelines.

Authors:  Keith Isaacson; Allan R Thom
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 4.  Anterior cranial-base time-related changes: A systematic review.

Authors:  Mona Afrand; Connie P Ling; Siamak Khosrotehrani; Carlos Flores-Mir; Manuel O Lagravère-Vich
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  A method of cephalometric evaluation.

Authors:  J A McNamara
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1984-12

6.  3D dentofacial photogrammetry reference values: a novel approach to orthodontic diagnosis.

Authors:  Mohamed I Masoud; Neetu Bansal; Jose C Castillo; Amornrut Manosudprasit; Veerasathpurush Allareddy; Arshan Haghi; Hannah C Hawkins; Erik Otárola-Castillo
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 7.  Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I.

Authors:  G W Arnett; R T Bergman
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 2.650

8.  The reproducibility of natural head posture: a methodological study.

Authors:  M S Cooke; S H Wei
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  Reliability of natural head position in orthodontic diagnosis: A cephalometric study.

Authors:  Naveen Bansal; Jeetinder Singla; Gurmeet Gera; Monika Gupta; Gurpreet Kaur
Journal:  Contemp Clin Dent       Date:  2012-04

Review 10.  Validity of 2D lateral cephalometry in orthodontics: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ana R Durão; Pisha Pittayapat; Maria Ivete B Rockenbach; Raphael Olszewski; Suk Ng; Afonso P Ferreira; Reinhilde Jacobs
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2013-09-20       Impact factor: 2.750

View more
  4 in total

1.  Automated identification of cephalometric landmarks: Part 2- Might it be better than human?

Authors:  Hye-Won Hwang; Ji-Hoon Park; Jun-Ho Moon; Youngsung Yu; Hansuk Kim; Soo-Bok Her; Girish Srinivasan; Mohammed Noori A Aljanabi; Richard E Donatelli; Shin-Jae Lee
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Predicting soft tissue changes after orthognathic surgery: The sparse partial least squares method.

Authors:  Hee-Yeon Suh; Ho-Jin Lee; Yun-Sic Lee; Soo-Heang Eo; Richard E Donatelli; Shin-Jae Lee
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Integration of digital maxillary dental casts with 3D facial images in orthodontic patients.

Authors:  Zhuoxing Xiao; Zijin Liu; Yan Gu
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Can modifying shielding, field of view, and exposure settings make the effective dose of a cone-beam computed tomography comparable to traditional radiographs used for orthodontic diagnosis?

Authors:  Stephanie Ting; Diana Attaia; K Brandon Johnson; Samer Shoukry Kossa; Bernard Friedland; Veerasathpurush Allareddy; Mohamed I Masoud
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 2.079

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.