OBJECTIVE: Conventional cephalometry is an inexpensive and well-established method for evaluating patients with dentofacial deformities. However, patients with major deformities, and in particular asymmetric cases are difficult to evaluate by conventional cephalometry. Both two- and three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) have been proposed to alleviate some of these difficulties. Only a few studies using metallic markers have indicated 3-D CT to be a useful diagnostic method, whereas no studies have evaluated the reliability of the anatomic cephalometric points used in 3-D CT. The aim of our study therefore was to compare the reliability of anatomic cephalometric points from conventional cephalograms and 3-D CT. METHODS: Nine human dry skulls were CT scanned. In addition standard lateral and frontal cephalograms were obtained. The CT scans were 3-D image reconstructed, and the cephalometric points were recorded as x, y, and z co-ordinates by two investigators. Computerized cephalometrics were performed-on the lateral and frontal cephalograms. Intra- and interindividual variations were calculated for each method and tested for statistical significance. RESULTS: Lateral cephalogram measures were more reliable than 3-D CT, with interobserver variations less than 1 mm for most points compared to about 2 mm for 3-D CT. Lateral cephalometrics also showed significantly less interobserver variation for six variables. This was, however, less obvious when 3-D CT was compared to frontal cephalograms. Frontal cephalometrics showed significantly less interobserver variation for three of the investigated variables. CONCLUSIONS: For standard lateral and frontal cephalometric points, there is no evidence that 3-D CT is more reliable than the conventional cephalometric methods in normal skull, and the benefit of 3-D CT cephalometric is indicated to be in the severe asymmetric craniofacial syndrome patients, as conventional cephalometrics is known to be inferior in these cases.
OBJECTIVE: Conventional cephalometry is an inexpensive and well-established method for evaluating patients with dentofacial deformities. However, patients with major deformities, and in particular asymmetric cases are difficult to evaluate by conventional cephalometry. Both two- and three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) have been proposed to alleviate some of these difficulties. Only a few studies using metallic markers have indicated 3-D CT to be a useful diagnostic method, whereas no studies have evaluated the reliability of the anatomic cephalometric points used in 3-D CT. The aim of our study therefore was to compare the reliability of anatomic cephalometric points from conventional cephalograms and 3-D CT. METHODS: Nine human dry skulls were CT scanned. In addition standard lateral and frontal cephalograms were obtained. The CT scans were 3-D image reconstructed, and the cephalometric points were recorded as x, y, and z co-ordinates by two investigators. Computerized cephalometrics were performed-on the lateral and frontal cephalograms. Intra- and interindividual variations were calculated for each method and tested for statistical significance. RESULTS: Lateral cephalogram measures were more reliable than 3-D CT, with interobserver variations less than 1 mm for most points compared to about 2 mm for 3-D CT. Lateral cephalometrics also showed significantly less interobserver variation for six variables. This was, however, less obvious when 3-D CT was compared to frontal cephalograms. Frontal cephalometrics showed significantly less interobserver variation for three of the investigated variables. CONCLUSIONS: For standard lateral and frontal cephalometric points, there is no evidence that 3-D CT is more reliable than the conventional cephalometric methods in normal skull, and the benefit of 3-D CT cephalometric is indicated to be in the severe asymmetric craniofacial syndromepatients, as conventional cephalometrics is known to be inferior in these cases.
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
Authors: E L Delamare; G S Liedke; M B Vizzotto; H L D da Silveira; J L D Ribeiro; H E D Silveira Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: S Cappabianca; L Perillo; V Esposito; F Iaselli; G Tufano; T G Thanassoulas; M Montemarano; R Grassi; A Rotondo Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 3.469