Comparative study between conventional and cone beam CT-synthesized half and total skull cephalograms

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 136-142

  Liedke, G S ^a,b   Delamare, E L ^a   Vizzotto, M B ^a   Da Silveira, H L D ^a   Prietsch, J R ^a   Dutra, V ^a   Da Silveira, H E D ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO GRANDE DO SUL   (Brazil)

^b NONE   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Cephalometry; Cone beam computed tomography

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856635529     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/22287302     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Stabrun AE, Danielsen K. Precision in cephalometric landmark identification. Eur J Orthod 1982; 4: 185-196. (Pubitemid 13189680)
2. Tng TT, Chan TC, Hagg U, Cooke MS. Validity of cephalometric landmarks. An experimental study on human skulls. Eur J Orthod 1994; 16: 110-120.
3. Richardson A. An investigation into the reproducibility of some points, planes, and lines used in cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod 1966; 52: 637-651.
4. Kamoen A, Dermaut L, Verbeeck R. The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. Eur J Orthod 2001; 23: 569-578. (Pubitemid 33671610)
5. Silveira HL, Silveira HE, Dalla-Bona RR, Abdala DD, Bertoldi RF, von Wangenheim A. Software system for calibrating examiners in cephalometric point identification. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 400-405.
6. Lau PY, Cooke MS, Hagg U. Effect of training and experience on cephalometric measurement errors on surgical patients. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1997; 12: 204-213.
7. Silveira HL, Silveira HE. Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements made by three radiology clinics. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 394-399. (Pubitemid 43692567)
8. Kragskov J, Bosch C, Gyldensted C, Sindet-Pedersen S. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and threedimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1997; 34: 111-116. (Pubitemid 27119981)
9. Togashi K, Kitaura H, Yonetsu K, Yoshida N, Nakamura T. Three-dimensional cephalometry using helical computer tomography: Measurement error caused by head inclination. Angle Orthod 2002; 72: 513-520.
10. Swennen GR, Schutyser F, Barth EL, De Groeve P, De Mey A. A new method of 3-D cephalometry. Part I: The anatomic Cartesian 3-D reference system. J Craniofac Surg 2006; 17: 314-325. (Pubitemid 44317893)
11. Kumar V, Ludlow JB, Mol A, Cevidanes L. Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 263-269. (Pubitemid 47218404)
12. Moshiri M, Scarfe WC, Hilgers ML, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 550-560.
13. van Vlijmen OJ, Berge SJ, Swennen GR, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Comparison of cephalometric radiographs obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans and conventional radiographs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67: 92-97.
14. Cattaneo PM, Bloch CB, Calmar D, Hjortshoj M, Melsen B. Comparison between conventional and cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 798-802.
15. Kumar V, Ludlow J, Soares Cevidanes LH, Mol A. In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 873-879.
16. Ziegler CM, Woertche R, Brief J, Hassfeld S. Clinical indications for digital volume tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002; 31: 126-130. (Pubitemid 38993338)
17. Nakagawa Y, Kobayashi K, Ishii H, Mishima A, Ishii H, Asada K, et al. Preoperative application of limited cone beam computerized tomography as an assessment tool before minor oral surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 31: 322-326.
18. Sato S, Arai Y, Shinoda K, Ito K. Clinical application of a new cone-beam computerized tomography system to assess multiple two-dimensional images for the preoperative treatment planning of maxillary implants: Case reports. Quintessence Int 2004; 35: 525-528. (Pubitemid 38834421)
19. Nakajima A, Sameshima GT, Arai Y, Homme Y, Shimizu N, Dougherty H Sr. Two-and three-dimensional orthodontic imaging using limited cone beam-computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2005; 75: 895-903. (Pubitemid 43127373)
20. Honey OB, Scarfe WC, Hilgers MJ, Klueber K, Silveira AM, Haskell BS, et al. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography imaging of the temporomandibular joint: Comparisons with panoramic radiology and linear tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 429-438.
21. Neugebauer J, Shirani R, Mischkowski RA, Ritter L, Scheer M, Keeve E, et al. Comparison of cone-beam volumetric imaging and combined plain radiographs for localization of the mandibular canal before removal of impacted lower third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105: 633-642; discussion 643.
22. da Silveira HL, Silveira HE, Liedke GS, Lermen CA, Dos Santos RB, de Figueiredo JA. Diagnostic ability of computed tomography to evaluate external root resorption in vitro. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 393-396. (Pubitemid 350032603)
23. Swennen GR, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional cephalometry: Spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 410-416. (Pubitemid 44376705)
24. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72: 75-80. (Pubitemid 43326970)
25. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini PT, Andreis IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: Preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998; 8: 1558-1564. (Pubitemid 128662693)
26. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL. Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32: 229-234. (Pubitemid 40288494)
27. Mah JK, Danforth RA, Bumann A, Hatcher D. Radiation absorbed in maxillofacial imaging with a new dental computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003; 96: 508-513. (Pubitemid 37249485)
28. Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, Adam G. Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4-and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 83-86.
29. Farman AG, Scarfe WC. Development of imaging selection criteria and procedures should precede cephalometric assessment with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 257-265. (Pubitemid 44202655)
30. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-310. (Pubitemid 16134762)
31. Ludlow JB, Laster WS, See M, Bailey LJ, Hershey HG. Accuracy of measurements of mandibular anatomy in cone beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 103: 534-542.
32. Delamare EL, Liedke GS, Vizzotto MB, da Silveira HL, Ribeiro JL, Silveira HE. Influence of a programme of professional calibration in the variability of landmark identification using cone beam computed tomography-synthesized and conventional radiographic cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39: 414-423.
33. de Oliveira AE, Cevidanes LH, Phillips C, Motta A, Burke B, Tyndall D. Observer reliability of three-dimensional cephalometric landmark identification on cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: 256-265.
34. Brown AA, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Linear accuracy of cone beam CT derived 3D images. Angle Orthod 2009; 79: 150-157.