+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Validation of conventional 2D lateral cephalometry using 3D cone beam CT

Validation of conventional 2D lateral cephalometry using 3D cone beam CT

Journal of Orthodontics 40(1): 22-28

To determine if two-dimensional (2D) measurements from conventional cephalometric lateral skull radiographs are comparable to those derived from three-dimensional (3D) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. In vitro laboratory study. University Dental Hospital. A sample size calculation determined that 14 dried skulls were required to detect a 2° difference in angular measurements. The skulls were scanned at 0·3 mm(3) voxel size. Maximum intensity projection (MIP) views were uploaded into OPAL cephalometric software (British Orthodontic Society, London, UK) for 2D analysis. CBCT data was uploaded into Mimics (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) with 3D reconstructed and sagittal slice views being used. An Eastman analysis was carried out for the 2D and 3D images with the data compared using two-sample t-tests at P<0·05. Measurements greater than 2° between the 2D and 3D data were considered clinically significantly different. Intra-observer reproducibility was assessed by calculating random and systematic error using the Dahlberg formula and a two-sample t-test (P<0·05). The random error was below 0·5° and the systematic error was acceptable (P<0·05). There were no statistically significant differences between the measurements from the 2D and 3D images for any variable (P<0·05). However, the mean SNB value and the mean value for the angle between the lower incisor and mandibular plane differed by greater than 2° between the 2D and 3D data. The latter was thought to be due to limitations of the definition of Gonion for 3D images and the precision of locating the lower incisor apex in 2D. Measurements used in the Eastman cephalometric analysis derived from 2D cephalometric lateral skull images are comparable to those derived from 3D CBCT images.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 036820611

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23524544

DOI: 10.1179/1465313312y.0000000009

Related references

Vertical palatal bone dimensions on lateral cephalometry and cone-beam computed tomography: implications for palatal implant placement. Clinical Oral Implants Research 22(6): 664-668, 2011

Comparison of airway space with conventional lateral headfilms and 3-dimensional reconstruction from cone-beam computed tomography. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 135(4): 468-479, 2009

Assessment of inter- and intra-operator cephalometric tracings on cone beam CT radiographs: comparison of the precision of the cone beam CT versus the latero-lateral radiograph tracing. Progress in Orthodontics 15: 1, 2014

Practical limitations of cone-beam computed tomography in 3D cephalometry. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 20(6): 662-668, 2011

Histological validation of cone-beam computed tomography versus laser fluorescence and conventional diagnostic methods for occlusal caries detection. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery 33(2): 61-68, 2015

Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 130(3): 410-416, 2006

The effect of beam collimation in lateral radiographic cephalometry. British Journal of Orthodontics 18(2): 119-124, 1991

A new mandible-specific landmark reference system for three-dimensional cephalometry using cone-beam computed tomography. European Journal of Orthodontics 38(6): 563-568, 2016

The reliability of using postero-anterior cephalometry and cone-beam CT to determine transverse dimensions in clinical practice. Australian Orthodontic Journal 30(2): 132-142, 2014

The validity of transverse intermaxillary analysis by traditional PA cephalometry compared with cone-beam computed tomography. Australian Orthodontic Journal 29(1): 86-95, 2013

Cone-beam computed tomography: accuracy of three-dimensional cephalometry analysis and influence of patient scanning position. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 23(4): 1038-1043, 2012

Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Cephalometry Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 26(4): E311-E315, 2015

A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional cephalometry on frontal radiographs and on cone beam computed tomography scans of human skulls. European Journal of Oral Sciences 117(3): 300-305, 2009

A comparative study between data obtained from conventional lateral cephalometry and reconstructed three-dimensional computed tomography images. Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 40(3): 123-129, 2014