Morphometrics for cephalometric diagnosis.

This article demonstrates morphometric methods by applying them to an orthodontic sample. A total of 150 pretreatment cephalograms of consecutive patients (84 female, 66 male) were traced and digitized. Fifteen points were used for the analysis. The tracings were superimposed by the Procrustes method, and shape variability was assessed by principal component analysis. Approximately 70% of the total sample variability was incorporated in the first 5 principal components. The most significant principal component, accounting for 29% of shape variability, was the divergence of skeletal pattern; the second principal component, accounting for 20% of shape variability, was the anteroposterior maxillary relationship. It is recommended that Procrustes superimposition and principal component analysis be incorporated into routine cephalometric analysis for more valid and comprehensive shape assessment.

[1]  S Baumrind,et al.  The reliability of head film measurements. 3. Tracing superimposition. , 1976, American journal of orthodontics.

[2]  D. Dean,et al.  Orthognathic surgery outcome analysis: 3-dimensional landmark geometric morphometrics. , 2002, The International journal of adult orthodontics and orthognathic surgery.

[3]  Mark A. J. Chaplain,et al.  On Growth and Form: Spatio-temporal Pattern Formation in Biology , 2000 .

[4]  M Sherriff,et al.  Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. , 1986, European journal of orthodontics.

[5]  G. Singh,et al.  Bimaxillary morphometry of patients with class II division 1 malocclusion treated with twin block appliances. , 2002, The Angle orthodontist.

[6]  J. McNamara,et al.  Thin-plate spline analysis of mandibular growth. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[7]  S. Lele,et al.  Euclidean distance matrix analysis: a coordinate-free approach for comparing biological shapes using landmark data. , 1991, American journal of physical anthropology.

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

[9]  Fred L. Bookstein,et al.  Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data. , 1998 .

[10]  M. Rosler,et al.  Error in landmark identification in lateral radiographic headplates. , 1981, European journal of orthodontics.

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

[12]  K. Mardia,et al.  Statistical Shape Analysis , 1998 .

[13]  J. P. Moss,et al.  Facial growth: separating shape from size. , 2001, European journal of orthodontics.

[14]  F. Bookstein,et al.  The inappropriateness of conventional cephalometrics. , 1979, American journal of orthodontics.

[15]  C. Conradt,et al.  Effects of early activator treatment in patients with class II malocclusion evaluated by thin-plate spline analysis. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[16]  Joan T. Richtsmeier,et al.  Advances in Anthropological Morphometrics , 1992 .

[17]  A. Jacobson,et al.  Introduction to Radiographic Cephalometry , 1985 .

[18]  S. Lele,et al.  The promise of geometric morphometrics. , 2002, American journal of physical anthropology.

[19]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology , 1999 .

[20]  S. Lele,et al.  An Invariant Approach to Statistical Analysis of Shapes , 2001 .

[21]  J. McNamara,et al.  Craniofacial heterogeneity of prepubertal Korean and European-American subjects with Class III malocclusions: procrustes, EDMA, and cephalometric analyses. , 1998, The International journal of adult orthodontics and orthognathic surgery.

[22]  W. Clark,et al.  Localization of mandibular changes in patients with class II division 1 malocclusions treated with twin-block appliances: finite element scaling analysis. , 2001, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[23]  J. McNamara,et al.  Thin-plate spline analysis of the short- and long-term effects of rapid maxillary expansion. , 2002, European journal of orthodontics.