A comparative study of digital lateral radiography and virtual cone-beam computed assisted cephalogram in cephalometric measurements.

  • Jesica Calle-Morocho Radiología Bucal y Maxilofacial, Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Lima, Perú.
  • Rafael Morales-Vadillo Radiología Bucal y Maxilofacial, Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Lima, Perú.
  • Janet Guevara-Canale Patología y Medicina Oral y Maxilofacial, Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Lima, Perú.
  • Carlos Alva-Cuneo Radiología Bucal y Maxilofacial, Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Lima, Perú.

Abstract

Objectives: To assess discrepancies in cephalometric measurements from digital lateral radiography and virtual cone-beam computed assisted tomography cephalogram. Materials and methods: Forty digital lateral radiographs and forty virtual cephalograms obtained by cone-beam computed assisted tomography were analyzed, corresponding to forty patients from the nstituto de Diagnóstico Maxilofacial in Lima, Peru. The principal investigator, who had been previously calibrated, made two measurements within a timespan of fifteen days using the analysis of Steiner and the NemoCeph software, and the difference between the obtained measurements was evaluated to determine if it was significant. Results: For digital lateral radiographs the difference varied between 0.00º - 0.45º and 0.01mm - 0.16mm, with statistical significance for distance between Pg and NB for lateral virtual cephalograms between 0.03º - 0.73º and 0.01mm - 0.43mm, with statistical significance for SE distance. The comparison between the two types of image in the first measurement showed a difference of 0.08º - 1.15º and 0.00mm - 1.43mm with statistical significance for four angular measurements and one linear. The comparison between the two types of image in the second measurement showed a difference of 0.13º - 1º and 0.02mm - 1.32mm with a statistically significant difference for three angular and two linear measurements. Conclusions: The difference between the two types of image is minimal; Both evaluated methods can be used effectively.

Author Biography

Jesica Calle-Morocho, Radiología Bucal y Maxilofacial, Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Lima, Perú.
Interim Editor -in- Chief

References

1. Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod. 1981;51:93–114.
2. Souza KR, Oltramari-Navarro PV, Navarro Rde L, Conti AC, Almeida MR. Reliability of a method to conduct upper airway analysis in cone-beam computed tomography. Braz Oral Res. 2013;27(1):48–54.
3. Navarro Rde L, Oltramari-Navarro PV, Fernandes TM, Oliveira GF, Conti AC, Almeida MR, Almeida RR. Comparison of manual, digital and lateral CBCT cephalometric analyses. J Appl Oral Sci. 2013;21(2):167–76.
4. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod. 1971;60(2):111–27.
5. Pittayapat P, Bornstein MM, Imada TS, Coucke W, Lambrichts I, Jacobs R. Accuracy of linear measurements using three imaging modalities: two lateral cephalograms and one 3D model from CBCT data. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37(2):202–8.
6. Thurzo A, Javorka V, Stanko P, Lysy J, Suchancova B, Lehotska V, Valkovic L, Makovnik M. Digital and manual cephalometric analysis. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2010;111(2):97–100.
7. Naoumova J, Lindman R. A comparison of manual traced images and corresponding scanned radiographs digitally traced. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(3):247–53.
8. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yao JC, Chang HF. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(2):155–61.
9. Kusnoto B. Two-dimensional cephalometry and computerized orthognathic surgical treatment planning. Clin Plast Surg. 2007;34(3):417–26.
10. Leonardi R, Giordano D, Maiorana F, Spampinato C. Automatic cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(1):145–51.
11. van Vlijmen OJ, Maal TJ, Bergé SJ, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional cephalometry on frontal radiographs and on cone beam computed tomography scans of human skulls. Eur J Oral Sci. 2009;117(3):300–5.
12. Tan SS, Ahmad S, Moles DR, Cunningham SJ. Picture archiving and communications systems: a study of reliability of orthodontic cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(5):537–43.
13. Yu SH, Nahm DS, Baek SH. Reliability of landmark identification on monitor-displayed lateral cephalometric images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(6):e1–6.
14. Wen J, Liu S, Ye X, Xie X, Li J, Li H, Mei L. Comparative study of cephalometric measurements using 3 imaging modalities. J Am Dent Assoc. 2017;148(12):913–21.
15. Stabrun AE, Danielsen K. Precision in cephalometric landmark identification. Eur J Orthod. 1982;4(3):185–96.
16. Chan CK, Tng TH, Hägg U, Cooke MS. Effects of cephalometric landmark validity on incisor angulation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;106(5):487–95.
17. Durão AR, Pittayapat P, Rockenbach MI, Olszewski R, Ng S, Ferreira AP, Jacobs R. Validity of 2D lateral cephalometry in orthodontics: a systematic review. Prog Orthod. 2013;14:31.
18. Houston WJ, Maher RE, McElroy D, Sherriff M. Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod. 1986;8(3):149–51.
19. Aksoy S, Kelahmet U, Hincal E, Oz U, Orhan K. Comparison of linear and angular measurements in CBCT scans using 2D and 3D rendering software. Int J Artif Organs. 2016;30(4):777–84.
20. da Silva MB, Gois BC, Sant'Anna EF. Evaluation of the reliability of measurements in cephalograms generated from cone beam computed tomography. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013;18(4):53–60.
21. Tng TT, Chan TC, Hägg U, Cooke MS. Validity of cephalometric landmarks. An experimental study on human skulls. Eur J Orthod. 1994;16(2):110–20.
22. Cattaneo PM, Bloch CB, Calmar D, Hjortshøj M, Melsen B. Comparison between conventional and cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(6):798–802.
23. Hariharan A, Diwakar NR, Jayanthi K, Hema HM, Deepukrishna S, Ghaste SR. The reliability of cephalometric measurements in oral and maxillofacial imaging: Cone beam computed tomography versus two-dimensional digital cephalograms. Indian J Dent Res. 2016;27(4):370–7.
24. Cassetta M, Altieri F, Di Giorgio R, Silvestri A. Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Cephalometry Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(4):e311–5.
25. Zamora N, Llamas JM, Cibrián R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. Cephalometric measurements from 3D reconstructed images compared with conventional 2D images. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(5):856–64.
26. Shokri A, Khajeh S, Khavid A. Evaluation of the accuracy of linear measurements on lateral cephalograms obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans with digital lateral cephalometric radiography: an in vitro study. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(5):1710–3.
27. 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(1):92–7.
28. Kumar V, Ludlow J, Soares Cevidanes LH, Mol A. In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(5):873–9.
29. Cavalcanti MG, Haller JW, Vannier MW. Three-dimensional computed tomography landmark measurement in craniofacial surgical planning: experimental validation in vitro. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;57(6):690–4.
30. Yitschaky O, Redlich M, Abed Y, Faerman M, Casap N, Hiller N. Comparison of common hard tissue cephalometric measurements between computed tomography 3D reconstruction and conventional 2D cephalometric images. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(1):11–6.
31. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, Cockmartin L, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Horner K, SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(2):267–71.
32. Isaacson KG, Thom AR, Atack NE, Horner K, Whaites E. Orthodontic Radiographs: Guidelines for the Use of Radiographs in Clinical Orthodontics. 4th Ed. London, England: British Orthodontic Society; 2015.
33. Horner K, Panel SEDENTEXCT. Cone Beam CT for Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology (Evidence Based Guidelines), (Radiation Protection series). Luxembourg: European Commission: Directorate-General for Energy; 2012.
34. Noffke CE, Farman AG, Nel S, Nzima N. Guidelines for the safe use of dental and maxillofacial CBCT: a review with recommendations for South Africa. SADJ. 2011;66(6):262–6.
32. Isaacson KG, Thom AR, Atack NE, Horner K, Whaites E. Orthodontic Radiographs: Guidelines for the Use of Radiographs in Clinical Orthodontics. 4th Ed. London, England: British Orthodontic Society; 2015.
33. Horner K, Panel SEDENTEXCT. Cone Beam CT for Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology (Evidence Based Guidelines), (Radiation Protection series). Luxembourg: European Commission: Directorate-General for Energy; 2012.
34. Noffke CE, Farman AG, Nel S, Nzima N. Guidelines for the safe use of dental and maxillofacial CBCT: a review with recommendations for South Africa. SADJ. 2011;66(6):262–6.
Published
2018-11-30
How to Cite
CALLE-MOROCHO, Jesica et al. A comparative study of digital lateral radiography and virtual cone-beam computed assisted cephalogram in cephalometric measurements.. Journal of Oral Research, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 8, p. 308-317, nov. 2018. ISSN 0719-2479. Available at: <https://joralres.com/index.php/JOR/article/view/joralres.2018.076>. Date accessed: 24 july 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2018.076.
Section
Articles

Keywords

Cone-Beam computed tomography; cephalometry; validity; reliability.