Conventional frontal radiographs compared with frontal radiographs obtained from cone beam computed tomography.

AIM To test the hypothesis that there is no difference between measurements performed on conventional frontal radiographs (FRs) and those performed on FRs obtained from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study consisted of conventional FRs and CBCT-constructed FRs obtained from 30 young adult patients. Twenty-three landmarks were identified on both types of cephalometric radiographs. Twenty-one widely used cephalometric variables (14 linear distances, 4 angles, and 3 ratios) were calculated. Paired t-tests were performed to compare the means of corresponding measurements on two cephalometric radiographs of the same patient. RESULTS Reproducibility of measurements ranged from 0.85 to 0.99 for CBCT-constructed FRs, and from 0.78 to 0.96 for conventional FRs. A statistically significant difference was observed between conventional FRs and CBCT-constructed FRs for all linear measurements (eurR-eurL, loR-loL, moR-moL, zygR-zygL, lapR-lapL, mxR-mxL, maR-maL, umR-umL, lmR-lmL, agR-agL, me-ans) (P < .05), except for the ans-cr measurement (P > .05). However, no statistically significant differences were noted between conventional FRs and CBCT-constructed FRs for ratios and angular measurements (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS The hypothesis was rejected. A difference has been noted between measurements performed on conventional FRs and those performed on CBCT-constructed FRs, particularly in terms of linear measurements.

[1]  David A Chenin,et al.  Dynamic cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontic treatment. , 2009, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[2]  E. O. Bergersen,et al.  Enlargement and distortion in cephalometric radiography: compensation tables for linear measurements. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[3]  Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman,et al.  A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional cephalometry on frontal radiographs and on cone beam computed tomography scans of human skulls. , 2009, European journal of oral sciences.

[4]  K. W. Kim,et al.  Effect of head rotation on lateral cephalometric radiographs. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[5]  Janalt Damstra,et al.  Evaluation and comparison of postero-anterior cephalograms and cone-beam computed tomography images for the detection of mandibular asymmetry. , 2013, European journal of orthodontics.

[6]  J Ghafari,et al.  Comparison of CT scanograms and cephalometric radiographs in craniofacial imaging. , 2002, Orthodontics & craniofacial research.

[7]  U Welander,et al.  The cephalometric projection. Part II. Principles of image distortion in cephalography. , 1983, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[8]  E. Bronkhorst,et al.  A comparison of frontal radiographs obtained from cone beam CT scans and conventional frontal radiographs of human skulls. , 2009, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[9]  Herbert Hofrath,et al.  Die Bedeutung der Röntgenfern- und Abstandsaufnahme für die Diagnostik der Kieferanomalien , 1931, Fortschritte der Orthodontik in Theorie und Praxis.

[10]  Shigemi Goto,et al.  Accurate pre-surgical determination for self-drilling miniscrew implant placement using surgical guides and cone-beam computed tomography. , 2010, European journal of orthodontics.

[11]  André Mol,et al.  In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. , 2008, The Angle orthodontist.

[12]  B. Holly Broadbent,et al.  A NEW X-RAY TECHNIQUE and ITS APPLICATION TO ORTHODONTIA , 2009 .

[13]  U. Hirschfelder,et al.  Variance of Landmarks in Digital Evaluations: Comparison between CT-based and Conventional Digital Lateral Cephalometric Radiographs , 2007, Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie.

[14]  Mohammad Y Hajeer,et al.  Three-dimensional imaging in orthognathic surgery: the clinical application of a new method. , 2002, The International journal of adult orthodontics and orthognathic surgery.