The accuracy of a designed software for automated localization of craniofacial landmarks on CBCT images

BackgroundTwo-dimensional projection radiographs have been traditionally considered the modality of choice for cephalometric analysis. To overcome the shortcomings of two-dimensional images, three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) has been used to evaluate craniofacial structures. However, manual landmark detection depends on medical expertise, and the process is time-consuming. The present study was designed to produce software capable of automated localization of craniofacial landmarks on cone beam (CB) CT images based on image registration and to evaluate its accuracy.MethodsThe software was designed using MATLAB programming language. The technique was a combination of feature-based (principal axes registration) and voxel similarity-based methods for image registration. A total of 8 CBCT images were selected as our reference images for creating a head atlas. Then, 20 CBCT images were randomly selected as the test images for evaluating the method. Three experts twice located 14 landmarks in all 28 CBCT images during two examinations set 6 weeks apart. The differences in the distances of coordinates of each landmark on each image between manual and automated detection methods were calculated and reported as mean errors.ResultsThe combined intraclass correlation coefficient for intraobserver reliability was 0.89 and for interobserver reliability 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 0.93). The mean errors of all 14 landmarks were <4 mm. Additionally, 63.57% of landmarks had a mean error of <3 mm compared with manual detection (gold standard method).ConclusionThe accuracy of our approach for automated localization of craniofacial landmarks, which was based on combining feature-based and voxel similarity-based methods for image registration, was acceptable. Nevertheless we recommend repetition of this study using other techniques, such as intensity-based methods.

[1]  J. F. Bradshaw,et al.  The principal axes transformation--a method for image registration. , 1990, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[2]  Rosa Cibrián,et al.  Cephalometric measurements from 3D reconstructed images compared with conventional 2D images. , 2011, The Angle orthodontist.

[3]  Majid Ahmadi,et al.  Automatic localization of craniofacial landmarks for assisted cephalometry , 2004, Pattern Recognit..

[4]  Guoping Wang,et al.  Automated 2-D Cephalometric Analysis on X-ray Images by a Model-Based Approach , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[5]  Mestiri Makram,et al.  Reeb Graph for Automatic 3 D Cephalometry , 2014 .

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

[7]  Keith Horner,et al.  Cone Beam CT for Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology ( Evidence Based Guidelines) , 2012 .

[8]  Rosalia Leonardia,et al.  Automatic Cephalometric Analysis A Systematic Review , 2007 .

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

[10]  James A McNamara,et al.  From 2D to 3D: an algorithm to derive normal values for 3-dimensional computerized assessment. , 2011, The Angle orthodontist.

[11]  Concetto Spampinato,et al.  Automatic cephalometric analysis. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[12]  S. Kapila,et al.  The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. , 2011, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[13]  Oswaldo de Vasconcellos Vilella,et al.  2D / 3D Cone-Beam CT images or conventional radiography: which is more reliable? , 2010 .

[14]  S Baumrind,et al.  Computer-aided head film analysis: the University of California San Francisco method. , 1980, American journal of orthodontics.

[15]  D B Forsyth,et al.  Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs, Part 2: Image quality. , 1996, The Angle orthodontist.

[16]  M Oshagh,et al.  Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks by a designed software. , 2013, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[17]  Hakil Kim,et al.  Fast and Accurate Rigid Registration of 3D CT Images by Combining Feature and Intensity , 2012, J. Comput. Sci. Eng..

[18]  Yi-Jane Chen,et al.  The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. , 2004, The Angle orthodontist.

[19]  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.

[20]  Richard A. Robb,et al.  Visualization in biomedical computing , 1999, Parallel Comput..

[21]  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.

[22]  Colin Studholme,et al.  Voxel similarity measures for automated image registration , 1994, Other Conferences.

[23]  Jae Hyun Park,et al.  An evaluation of cone-beam computed tomography use in postgraduate orthodontic programs in the United States and Canada. , 2011, Journal of dental education.

[24]  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.

[25]  W J Houston,et al.  The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. , 1983, American journal of orthodontics.