Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare the linear and angular measurements made on two-dimensional (2D) conventional cephalometric images and three-dimensional (3D) cone beam CT (CBCT) generated cephalograms derived from a 3D volumetric rendering program. METHODS Pre-treatment cephalometric digital radiographs of 11 patients and their corresponding CBCT images were randomly selected. The digital cephalometric radiographs were traced using Vista Dent OC (GAC International, Inc Bohemia, NY) and by hand. CBCT and Maxilim® (Medicim, Sint-Niklass, Belgium) software were used to generate cephalograms from the CBCT data set that were then linked to the 3D hard-tissue surface representations. In total, 16 cephalometric landmarks were identified and 18 widely used measurements (11 linear and 7 angular) were performed by 2 independent observers. Intraobserver reliability was assessed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), interobserver reliability was assessed with Student t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Mann-Whitney U-tests and Kruskal-Wallis H tests were also used to compare the three methods (P < 0.05). RESULTS The results demonstrated no statistically significant difference between interobserver analyses for CBCT-generated cephalograms (P < 0.05), except for Gonion-Menton (Go-Me) and Condylion-Gnathion (Co-Gn). Intraobserver examinations showed low ICCs, which was an indication of poor reproducibility for Go-Me and Sella-Nasion (S-N) in CBCT-generated cephalograms and poor reproducibility for Articulare-Gonion (Ar-Go) in the 2D hand tracing method (P < 0.05). No statistical significance was found for Vista Dent OC measurements (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Measurements from in vivo CBCT-generated cephalograms from Maxilim® software were found to be similar to conventional images. Thus, owing to higher radiation exposure, CBCT examinations should only be used when the inherent 3D information could improve the outcome of treatment.

[1]  Filip Schutyser,et al.  Three-dimensional (3-D) cephalometry. The basics for virtual planning , 2004 .

[2]  A. Farman,et al.  Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. , 2006, Journal.

[3]  Paul W Major,et al.  Accuracy of measurements and reliability of landmark identification with computed tomography (CT) techniques in the maxillofacial area: a systematic review. , 2007, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[4]  Sheldon Baumrind,et al.  The reliability of head film measurements , 1971 .

[5]  K. Mosier,et al.  Dosimetry and cost of imaging osseointegrated implants with film-based and computed tomography. , 1997, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[6]  J Martin Palomo,et al.  Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. , 2009, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[7]  Bassam Hassan,et al.  Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. , 2009, European journal of orthodontics.

[8]  Filip Schutyser,et al.  Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography. , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[9]  Birte Melsen,et al.  Comparison between conventional and cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. , 2008, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[10]  E. Çelik,et al.  Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. , 2009, European journal of orthodontics.

[11]  J. Antunes,et al.  3-D volume rendering maxillofacial analysis of angular measurements by multislice CT. , 2008, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[12]  M W Vannier,et al.  Craniofacial measurements based on 3D-CT volume rendering: implications for clinical applications. , 2004, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[13]  Allan G Farman,et al.  Development of imaging selection criteria and procedures should precede cephalometric assessment with cone-beam computed tomography. , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[14]  J B Ludlow,et al.  Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. , 2007, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[15]  M. Sales,et al.  Assessment of linear and angular measurements on three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographic images. , 2009, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[16]  W Jacquet,et al.  Novel information theory based method for superimposition of lateral head radiographs and cone beam computed tomography images. , 2010, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[17]  P. J. Sandler,et al.  Reproducibility of Cephalometric Measurements , 1988, British journal of orthodontics.

[18]  S E J Connor,et al.  Precision and accuracy of low-dose CT protocols in the evaluation of skull landmarks. , 2007, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[19]  J. Daniels,et al.  Congenital maxillomandibular fusion: a case report and review of the literature. , 2004, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[20]  Ulrich Wolf,et al.  Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. , 2008, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[21]  Allan G Farman,et al.  Linear accuracy of cone beam CT derived 3D images. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[22]  Christos Katsaros,et al.  Comparison of cephalometric radiographs obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans and conventional radiographs. , 2009, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[23]  William R Proffit,et al.  Image analysis and superimposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models. , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[24]  Young-Jooh Yoon,et al.  Effect of head rotation on posteroanterior cephalometric radiographs. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[25]  S Baumrind,et al.  The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. , 1971, American journal of orthodontics.

[26]  H M Pinsky,et al.  Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements using cone-beam CT. , 2006, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[27]  R. Nalçaci,et al.  A comparison of two-dimensional radiography and three-dimensional computed tomography in angular cephalometric measurements. , 2010, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[28]  André Mol,et al.  Editor's Summary and Q&A , 2009 .

[29]  Danielle R. Periago,et al.  Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. , 2008, The Angle orthodontist.

[30]  Manuel O Lagravère,et al.  Reliability of traditional cephalometric landmarks as seen in three-dimensional analysis in maxillary expansion treatments. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[31]  J. Kronman,et al.  Porion and condyle as cephalometric landmarks--an error study. , 1988, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[32]  William R Proffit,et al.  Working with DICOM craniofacial images. , 2009, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[33]  John B Ludlow,et al.  Precision of cephalometric landmark identification: cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional cephalometric views. , 2009, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[34]  H. Zeilhofer,et al.  Three-dimensional fetal cephalometry: an evaluation of the reliability of cephalometric measurements based on three-dimensional CT reconstructions and on dry skulls of sheep fetuses. , 2005, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[35]  Susan Ofner,et al.  Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo. , 2009, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[36]  Max Heiland,et al.  Value of Two Cone-beam Computed Tomography Systems from an Orthodontic Point of View , 2007, Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie.

[37]  C. Lascala,et al.  Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). , 2004, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[38]  Margherita Santoro,et al.  Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

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

[40]  S. Malkoç,et al.  The effect of head rotation on cephalometric radiographs. , 2005, European journal of orthodontics.

[41]  E M Bronkhorst,et al.  A comparison between 2D and 3D cephalometry on CBCT scans of human skulls. , 2010, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

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

[43]  C. Gyldensted,et al.  Comparison of the Reliability of Craniofacial Anatomic Landmarks Based on Cephalometric Radiographs and Three-Dimensional CT Scans , 1997 .

[44]  Omur Polat-Ozsoy,et al.  Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods. , 2009, European journal of orthodontics.

[45]  Allan G Farman,et al.  Accuracy of linear temporomandibular joint measurements with cone beam computed tomography and digital cephalometric radiography. , 2005, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

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

[47]  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.

[48]  Filip Schutyser,et al.  A New Method of 3-D Cephalometry Part I: The Anatomic Cartesian 3-D Reference System , 2006, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[49]  P. Mozzo,et al.  A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results , 1998, European Radiology.

[50]  S Baumrind,et al.  The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. , 1971, American journal of orthodontics.

[51]  Allan G Farman,et al.  Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from cone-beam computed tomography. , 2007, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.