Effect of changing the head position on accuracy of transverse measurements of the maxillofacial region made on cone beam computed tomography and conventional posterior-anterior cephalograms

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 46, Issue 5, 2017, Pages

  Shokri, Abbas ^a   Miresmaeili, Amirfarhang ^a   Farhadian, Nasrin ^a   Falah Kooshki, Sepideh ^b   Amini, Payam ^c   Mollaie, Najmeh ^d  

^a HAMADAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

^b KERMANSHAH UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

^c ROYAN INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE   (Iran)

^d RAFSANJAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

Author keywords

CBCT; Cephalometry

Indexed keywords

ANATOMIC LANDMARK; CEPHALOMETRY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; PATIENT POSITIONING; PROCEDURES; SKULL;

ANATOMIC LANDMARKS; CEPHALOMETRY; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMANS; IN VITRO TECHNIQUES; PATIENT POSITIONING; SKULL;

EID: 85026400627     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20160180     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Damstra J, Fourie Z, Ren Y. Evaluation and comparison of postero-anterior cephalograms and cone-beam computed tomography images for the detection of mandibular asymmetry. Eur J Orthod 2013; 35: 45-50.
2. van Vlijmen OJ, Maal TJ, Bergé SJ, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. A comparsion of frontal radiographs obtained from cone beam CT scans and conventional frontal radiographs of human skulls. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 38: 773-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2009.02.024
3. Betts NJ, Vanarsdall RL, Barber HD, Higgins-Baeber K, Fonesca RJ. Diagnosis and treatment of transverse maxillary deficiency. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1995; 10: 75-96.
4. Caple JM, Stephan CN, Gregory LS, MacGregor DM. Effect of head position on facial soft tissue depth measurements obtained using computed tomography. J Forensic Sci 2016; 61: 147-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12896
5. Poleti ML, Fernandes TM, Pagin O, Moretti MR, Rubira-Bullen IR. Analysis of linear measurements on 3D surface models using CBCT data segmentation obtained by automatic standard pre-set thresholds in two segmentation software programs: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20: 179-85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1485-5
6. Leonardi R, Annunziata A, Caltabiano M. Landmark identifi-cation error in posteroanteriorcephalometric radiography: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 761-5.
7. Periago DR, Scarfe WC, Moshiri M, Scheetz JP, Silveria 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: 387-95.
8. Malkoc S, Sari Z, Usumez S, Koyuturk AE. The effect head rotation cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod 2005; 27: 315-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjh098
9. Betts NJ, Sturtz DH, Aldrich DA. Treatment of transverse (width) discrepancies in patients who require isolated mandibular surgery: the case for maxillary expansion. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62: 361-4.
10. Lee HJ, Lee S, Lee EJ, Song IJ, Kang BC, Lee JS, et al. A comparative study of the deviation of the menton on poster-oanterior cephalograms and three-dimensional computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent 2016; 46: 33-8.
11. Kim MS, Lee EJ, Song IJ, Lee JS, Kang BC, Yoon SJ. The location of midfacial landmarks according to the method of establishing the midsagittal reference plane in three-dimensional computed tomography analysis of facial asymmetry. Imaging Sci Dent 2015; 45: 227-32.
12. Chen MH, Chang JZ, Kok SH, Chen YJ, Huang YD, Cheng KY, et al. Intraobserver reliability of landmark identification in cone-beam computed tomography-synthesized two-dimensional ceph-alograms versus conventional cephalometric radiography: a preliminary study. J Dent Sci 2014; 9: 56-62.
13. Ludlow JB, Gubler M, Cevidanes L, Mol A. Precision of ceph-alometric landmark identification: cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional cephalometric views. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 312.e1-10.
14. van Vlijmen OJ, Bergé 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: 92-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.04.025
15. Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31: 129-34.
16. Sato H, Ohki M, Kitamori H. A method for quantifying positional change of the condyle on lateral tomograms by means of digital subtraction. J Oral Rehabil 1998; 25: 448-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00252.x
17. Paul PE, Barbenel JC, Walker FS, Khambay BS, Moos KF, Ayoub AF. Evaluation of an improved orthognathic articulator system. 2. Accuracy of occlusal wafers. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41: 155-9.
18. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercurary, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 219-26.
19. Greiner M, Greiner A, Hirschfelder U. Variance of landmarks in digital evaluation: comparsion between CT-based and conventional digital lateral cephalometric radiographs. [In German.] J Orofac Orthop 2007; 68: 290-8.
20. Kumar V, Ludlow JB, Mol A, Cevidanes L. Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 263-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/98032356
21. Major PW, Johnson DE, Hesse KL, Glover KE. Landmark identification error in posterior anterior cephalometrics. Angle Orthod 1994; 64: 447-54.
22. El-Mangoury NH, Shaheen SI, Mostafa YA. Landmark identi-fication in computerized posteroanterior cephalometrics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987; 91: 57-61.
23. Schlicher W, Nielsen I, Huang JC, Maki K, Hatcher DC, Miller AJ. Consistency and precision of landmark identification in three dimensional cone beam computed tomograph scans. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34: 263-75.
24. Oz U, Orhan K, Abe N. Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 492-500.
25. White SC, Pharoah MJ, eds. Oral radiology: principles and in-terpretation. 6th edn. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2014.
26. Cattaneo PM, Bloch CB, Calmar D, Hjortshøj M, Melsen B. Comparsion between conventional and cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 798-802.
27. Liedke GS, Delamare EL, Vizzotto MB, da Silveira HL, Prietsch JR, Dutra V, et al. Comparative study between conventional and cone beam CT-synthesized half and total skull cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 136-42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/22287302
28. Major PW, Johnson DE, Hesse KL, Glover KE. Effect of head orientation on posterior anterior cephalometric landmark identi-fication. Angle Orthod 1996; 66: 51-60.