Asymmetry assessment using cone beam CT: A Class I and Class II patient comparison

Angle Orthodontist

Volumn 82, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 410-417

  Sievers, Matthew M ^a   Larson, Brent E ^b   Gaillard, Philippe R ^b   Wey, Andrew ^b  

^a Cambridge Orthodontics   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

3 Dimensional analysis; Asymmetry assessment; CBCT; Cone beam; Facial asymmetry

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; FACE ASYMMETRY; HUMAN; MALOCCLUSION; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; RADIOGRAPHY;

ADOLESCENT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; FACIAL ASYMMETRY; HUMANS; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS I; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS II; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 84861321943     PISSN: 00033219     EISSN: 19457103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2319/041711-271.1     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Katsumata A, Fujishita M, Maeda M, Ariji Y, Ariji E, Langlais RP. 3D-CT evaluation of facial asymmetry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005;99:212-220. (Pubitemid 40127200)
2. Janson G, de Lima KJ, Woodside DG, Metaxas A, de Freitas MR, Henriques JF. Class II subdivision malocclusion types and evaluation of their asymmetries. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131:57-66.
3. Alavi DG, Be Gole EA, Schneider BJ. Facial and dental arch asymmetries in class II subdivision malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;93:38-46.
4. Good S, Edler R, Wertheim D, Greenhill D. A computerized photographic assessment of the relationship between skeletal discrepancy and mandibular outline asymmetry. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28:97-102. (Pubitemid 43494632)
5. Severt TR, Proffit WR. The prevalence of facial asymmetry in the dentofacial deformities population at the University of North Carolina. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1997;12:171-176.
6. Carlson CA. Imaging modalities in x-ray computerized tomography and in selected volume tomography. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44:R23-56.
7. Terajima M, Nakasima A, Aoki Y, et al. A 3-dimensional method for analyzing the morphology of patients with maxillofacial deformities. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136:857-867.
8. Cook JT. Asymmetry of the cranio-facial skeleton. Br J Orthod. 1980;7:33-38.
9. 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.
10. Ludlow JB, Gubler M, Cevidanes L, Mol A. Precision of cephalometric landmark identification: Cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional cephalometric views. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136:312.e1-10; discussion 312-313.
11. Brodie AG. Cephalometric roentgenology; history, technics and uses. J Oral Surg (Chic). 1949;7:185-198.
12. Chien PC, Parks ET, Eraso F, Hartsfield JK, Roberts WE, Ofner S. Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38:262-273.
13. Salzmann JA. Limitations of roentgenographic cephalometrics. Am J Orthod. 1964;50:169-188.
14. Grauer D, Cevidanes LS, Proffit WR. Working with DICOM craniofacial images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136:460-470.
15. Periago DR, Scarfe WC, Moshiri M, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:387-395.
16. Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomographyderived surface models of different voxel sizes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137:16.e1-6; discussion 16-17.
17. Kragskov J, Bosch C, Gyldensted C, Sindet-Pedersen S. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34:111-116. (Pubitemid 27119981)
18. Valeri CJ, Cole TM III, Lele S, Richtsmeier JT. Capturing data from three-dimensional surfaces using fuzzy landmarks. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1998;107:113-124. (Pubitemid 28405747)
19. Komori M, Kawamura S, Ishihara S. Averageness or symmetry: Which is more important for facial attractiveness? Acta Psychol (Amst). 2009;131:136-142.
20. Berco M, Rigali PH Jr, Miner RM, De Luca S, Anderson NK, Will LA. Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136:17.e1-9; discussion 17-18.
21. Hilgers ML, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, Farman AG. Accuracy of linear temporomandibular joint measurements with cone beam computed tomography and digital cephalometric radiography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128:803-811. (Pubitemid 41797623)
22. 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.
23. Pinsky HM, Dyda S, Pinsky RW, Misch KA, Sarment DP. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements using conebeam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35:410-416. (Pubitemid 44904797)
24. Richtsmeier JT, Paik CH, Elfert PC, Cole TM III, Dahlman HR. Precision, repeatability, and validation of the localization of cranial landmarks using computed tomography scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1995;32:217-227.
25. Williams FL, Richtsmeier JT. Comparison of mandibular landmarks from computed tomography and 3D digitizer data. Clin Anat. 2003;16:494-500. (Pubitemid 37351909)
26. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986:307-310. (Pubitemid 16134762)