Literature DB >> 8005198

Validity of cephalometric landmarks. An experimental study on human skulls.

T T Tng1, T C Chan, U Hägg, M S Cooke.   

Abstract

Cephalometric landmark validity (the difference between the estimated landmark and the true landmark) has surprisingly not previously been comprehensively evaluated, and no previous study has examined the validity of cephalometric angles and distances. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of 15 commonly used skeletal and dental cephalometric landmarks, and the subsequent effects on 17 angles and distances. Small steel balls were glued on to 30 Chinese dry skulls to represent the true anatomical landmarks. The skulls were mounted in a purpose-designed skull holder and two cephalograms recorded of each skull, one with and one without the steel balls on the landmarks. Validity was expressed as the difference in the measurements between the assessments made with and without the steel ball markers. Measurements were made relative to X and Y co-ordinates which were constructed from reference points (steel balls) glued intracranially to the skulls. Seven out of the 10 skeletal landmarks and all five dental landmarks, were found to be non-valid along the X or the Y axes (P < 0.05). The standard deviations of the validity errors were large, being 1.0-2.5 mm, along at least one axis, for eight of the skeletal landmarks and three of the dental landmarks. Four of the cephalometric angles (SNA, SN/MnP, MxP/MnP, and LI/MnP) and three of the distances (N-Me, MxP-Me, and lower incisor edge to APg) were also found to be invalid (P < 0.05). The validity errors were greater for angles involving dental landmarks and for angles dependent on four landmarks compared to those dependent on three. The standard deviations of the validity errors for the skeletal angles ranged from 0.9 to 1.8 degrees, except for ANB (0.4 degrees), and for the dental angles from 3.2 to 5.8 degrees.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8005198     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/16.2.110

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthod        ISSN: 0141-5387            Impact factor:   3.075


  21 in total

1.  Stereological estimation of total intracranial volume on CT images.

Authors:  Michael Mazonakis; Spyros Karampekios; John Damilakis; Argyro Voloudaki; Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-02-06       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Comparative study between conventional and cone beam CT-synthesized half and total skull cephalograms.

Authors:  G S Liedke; E L Delamare; M B Vizzotto; H L D da Silveira; J R Prietsch; V Dutra; H E D da Silveira
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.419

3.  Novel information theory based method for superimposition of lateral head radiographs and cone beam computed tomography images.

Authors:  W Jacquet; E Nyssen; P Bottenberg; P de Groen; B Vande Vannet
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.419

4.  Three-dimensional interpretation of labiolingual bone width of the lower incisors. Part II.

Authors:  R Fuhrmann
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 1.938

5.  Comparison of actual surgical outcomes and 3-dimensional surgical simulations.

Authors:  Scott Tucker; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes; Martin Styner; Hyungmin Kim; Mauricio Reyes; William Proffit; Timothy Turvey
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 1.895

6.  A new approach of splint-less orthognathic surgery using a personalized orthognathic surgical guide system: A preliminary study.

Authors:  B Li; S Shen; W Jiang; J Li; T Jiang; J J Xia; S G Shen; X Wang
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 2.789

7.  Assessing lower incisor inclination change: a comparison of four cephalometric methods.

Authors:  Amritraj Jabbal; Martyn Cobourne; Nora Donaldson; Dirk Bister
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Accuracy of a computer-aided surgical simulation protocol for orthognathic surgery: a prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Sam Sheng-Pin Hsu; Jaime Gateno; R Bryan Bell; David L Hirsch; Michael R Markiewicz; John F Teichgraeber; Xiaobo Zhou; James J Xia
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2012-06-12       Impact factor: 1.895

9.  In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms.

Authors:  Vandana Kumar; John Ludlow; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes; André Mol
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  Outcome quantification using SPHARM-PDM toolbox in orthognathic surgery.

Authors:  Beatriz Paniagua; Lucia Cevidanes; Hongtu Zhu; Martin Styner
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 2.924

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.