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

Overview

Journal Dentomaxillofac Radiol

Publisher Oxford University Press

Date 2011 Nov 9

PMID 22065798

Citations 32

Authors

U Oz

K Orhan

N Abe

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the linear and angular measurements made on two-dimensional (2D) conventional cephalometric images and three-dimensional (3D) cone beam CT (CBCT) generated cephalograms derived from a 3D volumetric rendering program.

Methods: Pre-treatment cephalometric digital radiographs of 11 patients and their corresponding CBCT images were randomly selected. The digital cephalometric radiographs were traced using Vista Dent OC (GAC International, Inc Bohemia, NY) and by hand. CBCT and Maxilim® (Medicim, Sint-Niklass, Belgium) software were used to generate cephalograms from the CBCT data set that were then linked to the 3D hard-tissue surface representations. In total, 16 cephalometric landmarks were identified and 18 widely used measurements (11 linear and 7 angular) were performed by 2 independent observers. Intraobserver reliability was assessed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), interobserver reliability was assessed with Student t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Mann-Whitney U-tests and Kruskal-Wallis H tests were also used to compare the three methods (P < 0.05).

Results: The results demonstrated no statistically significant difference between interobserver analyses for CBCT-generated cephalograms (P < 0.05), except for Gonion-Menton (Go-Me) and Condylion-Gnathion (Co-Gn). Intraobserver examinations showed low ICCs, which was an indication of poor reproducibility for Go-Me and Sella-Nasion (S-N) in CBCT-generated cephalograms and poor reproducibility for Articulare-Gonion (Ar-Go) in the 2D hand tracing method (P < 0.05). No statistical significance was found for Vista Dent OC measurements (P > 0.05).

Conclusions: Measurements from in vivo CBCT-generated cephalograms from Maxilim® software were found to be similar to conventional images. Thus, owing to higher radiation exposure, CBCT examinations should only be used when the inherent 3D information could improve the outcome of treatment.

Citing Articles

Correlation Between Facial Asymmetry and Maxillary Sinus Size or Volume Using Dental Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Images.

Takeda M, Kujirai K, Takahashi M, Hatanaka R, Koizumi S, Hikita Y Cureus. 2025; 17(3):e80118.

PMID: 40051697 PMC: 11883143. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.80118.

Comparison of conventional two-dimensional and digital three-dimensional imaging in orthodontics : A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Haude A, Lehmann T, Hennig C, Jacobs C J Orofac Orthop. 2025; .

PMID: 39976657 DOI: 10.1007/s00056-024-00574-7.

Use of CBCT in Orthodontics: A Scoping Review.

Polizzi A, Serra S, Leonardi R J Clin Med. 2024; 13(22).

PMID: 39598084 PMC: 11595122. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13226941.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of accuracy between protrusive interocclusal record and horizontal condylar guidance angle recording methods in dentulous patients.

Potdukhe S, Iyer J, Nadgere J J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2024; 24(1):3-14.

PMID: 38263553 PMC: 10896306. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_382_23.

Concordance and reproducibility in the location of reference points for a volumetric craniofacial analysis: Cross-sectional study.

Romero-Tapiero N, Giraldo-Mejia A, Herrera-Rubio A, Aristizabal-Perez J J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2023; 17(2):87-95.

PMID: 37649819 PMC: 10462468. DOI: 10.34172/joddd.2023.37025.

References

Scarfe W, Farman A, Sukovic P . Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006; 72(1):75-80. View

Malkoc S, Sari Z, Usumez S, Koyuturk A . The effect of head rotation on cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod. 2005; 27(3):315-21. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjh098. View

Greiner M, Greiner A, Hirschfelder U . Variance of landmarks in digital evaluations: comparison between CT-based and conventional digital lateral cephalometric radiographs. J Orofac Orthop. 2007; 68(4):290-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-007-0710-5. View

Lopes P, Moreira C, Perrella A, Antunes J, Cavalcanti M . 3-D volume rendering maxillofacial analysis of angular measurements by multislice CT. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 105(2):224-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.08.036. View

Brown A, Scarfe W, Scheetz J, Silveira A, Farman A . Linear accuracy of cone beam CT derived 3D images. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79(1):150-7. DOI: 10.2319/122407-599.1. View

Connor S, Arscott T, Berry J, Greene L, OGorman R . Precision and accuracy of low-dose CT protocols in the evaluation of skull landmarks. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007; 36(5):270-6. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/90016954. View

Yoon Y, Kim D, Kim H, Choi E, Kim K . Effect of head rotation on posteroanterior cephalometric radiographs. Angle Orthod. 2002; 72(1):36-42. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0036:EOHROP>2.0.CO;2. View

Lascala C, Panella J, Marques M . Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004; 33(5):291-4. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/25500850. View

Ludlow J, 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(3):312.e1-10. PMC: 2753840. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.12.018. View

10.

Moshiri M, Scarfe W, Hilgers M, Scheetz J, Silveira A, Farman A . Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132(4):550-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.046. View

11.

Lou L, Lagravere M, Compton S, Major P, Flores-Mir C . Accuracy of measurements and reliability of landmark identification with computed tomography (CT) techniques in the maxillofacial area: a systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 104(3):402-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.07.015. View

12.

Swennen G, Schutyser F . Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(3):410-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.035. View

13.

Swennen G, Schutyser F, Barth E, 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(2):314-25. DOI: 10.1097/00001665-200603000-00019. View

14.

Chidiac J, Shofer F, LASTER L, Ghafari J . Comparison of CT scanograms and cephalometric radiographs in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2002; 5(2):104-13. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0544.2002.01170.x. View

15.

Silva M, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Bumann A, Visser H, Hirsch E . Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133(5):640.e1-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.019. View

16.

Periago D, Scarfe W, Moshiri M, Scheetz J, Silveira A, Farman A . Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(3):387-95. DOI: 10.2319/122106-52.1. View

17.

Cevidanes L, Styner M, Proffit W . Image analysis and superimposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129(5):611-8. PMC: 3586191. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.008. View

18.

Papadopoulos M, Jannowitz C, Boettcher P, Henke J, Stolla R, Zeilhofer H . Three-dimensional fetal cephalometry: an evaluation of the reliability of cephalometric measurements based on three-dimensional CT reconstructions and on dry skulls of sheep fetuses. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2005; 33(4):229-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2005.02.003. View

19.

Grauer D, Cevidanes L, Proffit W . Working with DICOM craniofacial images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136(3):460-70. PMC: 2761026. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.04.016. View

20.

Cattaneo P, Bloch C, Calmar D, Hjortshoj M, Melsen B . Comparison between conventional and cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134(6):798-802. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.008. View