Comparison of Inter and Intra-Operator Differences for Cephalometric Landmark Identification on Three-Dimensional CBCT Images using Pro Plan CMF

Objective: To establish reliability of cephalometric landmark identification in threedimensions using ProPlan CMF software. Methods: Two orthodontist identified a series of 33 cephalometric landmarks on 20 CBCT scans of Class I, pre-orthodontic patients and repeated the landmark identification about two months later. Intraclass correlations (ICC) were calculated by landmark in the X, Y, and Z dimensions and F-test were used to assess difference in landmark location in the X, Y, and Z dimensions. Results: The majority of landmarks had good to excellent ICC for both interand intraobserver reliability. F-test also showed the majority of landmarks had no significant difference between the observers. Conclusion: Most landmarks showed good to very good reliability and reproducibility using ProPlan CMF, with some landmarks proving more reliable than others and further research is needed to establish the utility and practicality of three-dimensional cephalometrics as a common diagnostic tool in orthodontics

[1]  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.

[2]  Bassam Hassan,et al.  Precision of identifying cephalometric landmarks with cone beam computed tomography in vivo. , 2013, European journal of orthodontics.

[3]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

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

[5]  O. V. Vilella,et al.  Evaluation of cephalometric landmark identification on CBCT multiplanar and 3D reconstructions. , 2015, The Angle orthodontist.

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

[7]  A Ruprecht,et al.  Comparison of observer reliability of three-dimensional cephalometric landmark identification on subject images from Galileos and i-CAT cone beam CT. , 2013, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[8]  A. Jacobson.  Cephalometrics: A comparison of 5 analyses currently used in the diagnosis of dentofacial deformities: G. A. Wylie, L. C. Fish, and B. N. Epker Int. J. Adult Orthodon. Orthognath. Surg. 1987;2:15–36 , 1988 .

[9]  Mansur Ahmad,et al.  Application of cone beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. , 2012, Australian dental journal.

[10]  Brandon Burke,et al.  Observer reliability of three-dimensional cephalometric landmark identification on cone-beam computerized tomography. , 2009, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[11]  B. Epker,et al.  Cephalometrics: a comparison of five analyses currently used in the diagnosis of dentofacial deformities. , 1987, International Journal of Adult Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery.

[12]  P. Jung,et al.  Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography cephalometric measurements using a midsagittal projection and conventional two-dimensional cephalometric measurements , 2015, Korean journal of orthodontics.

[13]  Y. Hochberg.  A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance , 1988 .

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

[15]  Manuel O Lagravère,et al.  Intraexaminer and interexaminer reliabilities of landmark identification on digitized lateral cephalograms and formatted 3-dimensional cone-beam computerized tomography images. , 2010, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[16]  A. Motta,et al.  Reliability and reproducibility of three-dimensional cephalometric landmarks using CBCT: a systematic review , 2015, Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB.

[17]  Rosa Cibrián,et al.  A study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks when undertaking a three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analysis , 2012, Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal.

[18]  A. Hariharan,et al.  The reliability of cephalometric measurements in oral and maxillofacial imaging: Cone beam computed tomography versus two-dimensional digital cephalograms , 2016, Indian journal of dental research : official publication of Indian Society for Dental Research.

[19]  P. Bracco,et al.  Assessment of the Reliability and Repeatability of Landmarks Using 3-D Cephalometric Software , 2012, Cranio : the journal of craniomandibular practice.

[20]  David C Hatcher,et al.  Consistency and precision of landmark identification in three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography scans. , 2012, European journal of orthodontics.

[21]  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.

[22]  B Trpkova,et al.  Cephalometric Landmarks Identification and Reproducibility: a Meta Analysis Materials and Methods Selection of Studies and Landmarks , 2022 .

[23]  S A Stratemann,et al.  Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. , 2008, Dento maxillo facial radiology.