Literature DB >> 3472459

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

J Ghafari, F E Engel, L L Laster.   

Abstract

Spatial change in the jaws of growing persons is often evaluated by superimposing cephalometric tracings made at different points in time. Methods of superimposition vary according to structures used as references within the skull. This study compares four different superimposition methods. The sample consisted of 26 patients (13 boys, 13 girls) treated for Class II, Division 1 malocclusions with extraction of the four first premolars. Tracings of pretreatment (average age for boys, 12.5 years; for girls, 12.2 years) and posttreatment (average age for boys, 15.4 years; for girls, 14.9 years) cephalograms were superimposed according to the following methods: (1) best fit of anterior cranial base anatomy, (2) superimposition on SN line, registered at S, (3) superimposition on registration point R with Bolton-nasion planes parallel, and (4) superimposition on basion-nasion (Ricketts), registered at point CC (4) and point N (4a). Differences in amount of change among the superimposition methods were assessed independently for each of the following landmarks: PNS, ANS, A, B, Pog, Gon. On each patient and for each landmark, ten distances--the paired differences of five posttreatment positions obtained by methods 1, 2, 3, 4, and 4a--were evaluated. Two methods were compared at a time. A t test examined the average difference for each comparison. Because all differences between all paired methods were significant (P less than 0.01), t tests were then viewed under the hypothesis that a difference less than or equal to 1 mm was insignificant clinically. Clinically-statistically significant differences were found only for boys and for the total sample between methods 4a and each of methods 1, 2, and 3. As method 4a is advocated to assess changes of point A (Ricketts), this method gives, for the same person, an interpretation of anterior maxillary change in position different from the other methods. Conclusions about facial changes may be made only in reference to the superimposition method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3472459     DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90393-3

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


  18 in total

1.  Evaluation of an automated superimposition method for computer-aided cephalometrics.

Authors:  Jun-Ho Moon; Hye-Won Hwang; Shin-Jae Lee
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Prediction of mandibular movement and its center of rotation for nonsurgical correction of anterior open bite via maxillary molar intrusion.

Authors:  Kyunam Kim; Kwangchul Choy; Young-Chel Park; Seo Yeon Han; Heekyu Jung; Yoon Jeong Choi
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Three-dimensional treatment outcomes in Class II patients treated with the Herbst appliance: a pilot study.

Authors:  Megan LeCornu; Lucia H S Cevidanes; Hongtu Zhu; Chih-Da Wu; Brent Larson; Tung Nguyen
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.650

4.  Superimposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models of growing patients.

Authors:  Lucia H C Cevidanes; Gavin Heymann; Marie A Cornelis; Hugo J DeClerck; J F Camilla Tulloch
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  Comparison and reproducibility of 2 regions of reference for maxillary regional registration with cone-beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas; Luis T Huanca Ghislanzoni; Marcelo Regis Gomes; Carlotta Danesi; Roberta Lione; Tung Nguyen; James A McNamara; Paola Cozza; Lorenzo Franchi; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 6.  3D superimposition of craniofacial imaging-The utility of multicentre collaborations.

Authors:  Marilia Yatabe; Juan Carlos Prieto; Martin Styner; Hongtu Zhu; Antonio Carlos Ruellas; Beatriz Paniagua; Francois Budin; Erika Benavides; Brandon Shoukri; Loic Michoud; Nina Ribera; Lucia Cevidanes
Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 1.826

7.  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

8.  Age-related changes of the soft tissue profile from the second to the fourth decades of life.

Authors:  Lino Torlakovic; Espen Faerøvig
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.079

9.  Morphometric analysis of palatal rugae in different malocclusions.

Authors:  Maria E Saadeh; Ramzi V Haddad; Joseph G Ghafari
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 1.938

10.  The aponeurotic tension model of craniofacial growth in man.

Authors:  Richard G Standerwick; W Eugene Roberts
Journal:  Open Dent J       Date:  2009-05-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.