Limits...
Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography cephalometric measurements using a midsagittal projection and conventional two-dimensional cephalometric measurements.

Jung PK, Lee GC, Moon CH - Korean J Orthod (2015)

Bottom Line: Twelve angle values and 8 length values were measured on both LCR and CBCT and compared.LCR was significantly different from 3 types of CBCT in 3 angular (SN to FH, interincisal angle, FMIA) and 2 linear (S-Go, Co-ANS) measurements.Although the measurements changed with reorientation, these changes were not clinically significant.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study investigated whether it is possible to use a two-dimensional (2D) standard in three-dimensional (3D) analysis, by comparing the angles and lengths measured from a midsagittal projection in 3D cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with those measured by 2D lateral cephalometric radiography (LCR).

Methods: Fifty patients who underwent both LCR and CBCT were selected as subjects. CBCT was reoriented in 3 different methods and the measuring-points were projected onto the midsagittal plane. Twelve angle values and 8 length values were measured on both LCR and CBCT and compared.

Results: Repeated measures analysis of the variance revealed statistically significant differences in 7 angular and 5 linear measurements among LCR and 3 types of CBCT (p < 0.05). Of these 12 measurements, multiple comparisons showed that 6 measurements (ANB, AB to FH, IMPA, FMA, Co-Gn, Go-Me) were not significantly different in pairwise comparisons. LCR was significantly different from 3 types of CBCT in 3 angular (SN to FH, interincisal angle, FMIA) and 2 linear (S-Go, Co-ANS) measurements. The CBCT method was similar for all measurements, except for 1 linear measurement, i.e., S-N. However, the disparity between the mean values for all parameters was within the range of clinical measurement error.

Conclusions: 3D-CBCT analysis, using midsagittal projection, is a useful method in which the 2D-LCR normative values can be used. Although the measurements changed with reorientation, these changes were not clinically significant.

No MeSH data available.


Midsagittal plane established by reorientation.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4664904&req=5

Figure 2: Midsagittal plane established by reorientation.

Mentions: LCR was standardized so that the length on the radiographic image and the actual length were identical in the calibration mode of the analysis program,21 and tracing was performed as per standard techniques. In the CBCT image, the measuring-points were designated using an MPR view and the 3D-volume rendering view (Figure 1). Reorientation was later performed using 3 methods, and the midsagittal plane was then set (Figure 2). The measuring-point was projected onto the midsagittal plane, and the parameter identical to that in LCR was measured (Table 2). The bilateral measuring-points were measured after designating the left and right measuring-points, using the midpoint between these 2 points.


Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography cephalometric measurements using a midsagittal projection and conventional two-dimensional cephalometric measurements.

Jung PK, Lee GC, Moon CH - Korean J Orthod (2015)

Midsagittal plane established by reorientation.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4664904&req=5

Figure 2: Midsagittal plane established by reorientation.
Mentions: LCR was standardized so that the length on the radiographic image and the actual length were identical in the calibration mode of the analysis program,21 and tracing was performed as per standard techniques. In the CBCT image, the measuring-points were designated using an MPR view and the 3D-volume rendering view (Figure 1). Reorientation was later performed using 3 methods, and the midsagittal plane was then set (Figure 2). The measuring-point was projected onto the midsagittal plane, and the parameter identical to that in LCR was measured (Table 2). The bilateral measuring-points were measured after designating the left and right measuring-points, using the midpoint between these 2 points.

Bottom Line: Twelve angle values and 8 length values were measured on both LCR and CBCT and compared.LCR was significantly different from 3 types of CBCT in 3 angular (SN to FH, interincisal angle, FMIA) and 2 linear (S-Go, Co-ANS) measurements.Although the measurements changed with reorientation, these changes were not clinically significant.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study investigated whether it is possible to use a two-dimensional (2D) standard in three-dimensional (3D) analysis, by comparing the angles and lengths measured from a midsagittal projection in 3D cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with those measured by 2D lateral cephalometric radiography (LCR).

Methods: Fifty patients who underwent both LCR and CBCT were selected as subjects. CBCT was reoriented in 3 different methods and the measuring-points were projected onto the midsagittal plane. Twelve angle values and 8 length values were measured on both LCR and CBCT and compared.

Results: Repeated measures analysis of the variance revealed statistically significant differences in 7 angular and 5 linear measurements among LCR and 3 types of CBCT (p < 0.05). Of these 12 measurements, multiple comparisons showed that 6 measurements (ANB, AB to FH, IMPA, FMA, Co-Gn, Go-Me) were not significantly different in pairwise comparisons. LCR was significantly different from 3 types of CBCT in 3 angular (SN to FH, interincisal angle, FMIA) and 2 linear (S-Go, Co-ANS) measurements. The CBCT method was similar for all measurements, except for 1 linear measurement, i.e., S-N. However, the disparity between the mean values for all parameters was within the range of clinical measurement error.

Conclusions: 3D-CBCT analysis, using midsagittal projection, is a useful method in which the 2D-LCR normative values can be used. Although the measurements changed with reorientation, these changes were not clinically significant.

No MeSH data available.