Literature DB >> 34605860

Evaluation of an automated superimposition method based on multiple landmarks for growing patients.

Min-Gyu Kim, Jun-Ho Moon, Hye-Won Hwang, Sung Joo Cho, Richard E Donatelli, Shin-Jae Lee.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine if an automated superimposition method using six landmarks (Sella, Nasion, Porion, Orbitale, Basion, and Pterygoid) would be more suitable than the traditional Sella-Nasion (SN) method to evaluate growth changes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serial lateral cephalograms at an average interval of 2.7 years were taken on 268 growing children who had not undergone orthodontic treatment. The T1 and T2 lateral images were manually traced. Three different superimposition methods: Björk's structural method, conventional SN, and the multiple landmark (ML) superimposition methods were applied. Bjork's structural method was used as the gold standard. Comparisons among the superimposition methods were carried out by measuring the linear distances between Anterior Nasal Spine, point A, point B, and Pogonion using each superimposition method. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify factors that could affect the accuracy of the superimpositions.
RESULTS: The ML superimposition method demonstrated smaller differences from Björk's method than the conventional SN method did. Greater differences among the cephalometric landmarks tested resulted when: the designated point was farther from the cranial base, the T1 age was older, and the more time elapsed between T1 and T2.
CONCLUSIONS: From the results of this study in growing patients, the ML superimposition method seems to be more similar to Björk's structural method than the SN superimposition method. A major advantage of the ML method is likely to be that it can be applied automatically and may be just as reliable as manual superimposition methods.
© 2022 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Automatic superimposition method; Growth evaluation

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34605860      PMCID: PMC8887407          DOI: 10.2319/010121-1.1

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


  26 in total

1.  A comparison of three superimposition methods.

Authors:  Q L You; U Hägg
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  The reliability of head film measurements. 3. Tracing superimposition.

Authors:  S Baumrind; D Miller; R Molthen
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1976-12

3.  Comparison of hand-traced and computer-based cephalometric superimpositions.

Authors:  S S Huja; E L Grubaugh; A M Rummel; H W Fields; F M Beck
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  A sparse principal component analysis of Class III malocclusions.

Authors:  Tae-Joo Kang; Soo-Heang Eo; HyungJun Cho; Richard E Donatelli; Shin-Jae Lee
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years.

Authors:  A Björk; V Skieller
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1983-02       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Machine learning in orthodontics: Introducing a 3D auto-segmentation and auto-landmark finder of CBCT images to assess maxillary constriction in unilateral impacted canine patients.

Authors:  Si Chen; Li Wang; Gang Li; Tai-Hsien Wu; Shannon Diachina; Beatriz Tejera; Jane Jungeun Kwon; Feng-Chang Lin; Yan-Ting Lee; Tianmin Xu; Dinggang Shen; Ching-Chang Ko
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-08-12       Impact factor: 2.079

7.  A more accurate method of predicting soft tissue changes after mandibular setback surgery.

Authors:  Hee-Yeon Suh; Shin-Jae Lee; Yun-Sik Lee; Richard E Donatelli; Timothy T Wheeler; Soo-Hwan Kim; Soo-Heang Eo; Byoung-Moo Seo
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.895

8.  Craniofacial growth and skeletal maturation: a mixed longitudinal study.

Authors:  M Arat; A Köklü; E Ozdiler; M Rübendüz; B Erdoğan
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Cephalometric superimposition on the cranial base: a review and a comparison of four methods.

Authors:  J Ghafari; F E Engel; L L Laster
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 2.650

10.  Longitudinal growth changes of the cranial base from puberty to adulthood. A comparison of different superimposition methods.

Authors:  Zuleyha Mirzen Arat; Hakan Türkkahraman; Jeryl D English; Ronald L Gallerano; Jim C Boley
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.079

View more
  1 in total

1.  Stability of fiducial cephalometric landmarks of growing Class II malocclusion patients: a three-dimensional retrospective study.

Authors:  Lucas Garcia Santana; Paula Loureiro Cheib; Henrique Gontijo de Pársia; Lorenzo Franchi; Alexandre Moro; Bernardo Q Souki
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 2.684

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.