» Articles » PMID: 33540549

Reliability and Reproducibility of Landmark Identification in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: Digital Lateral Vis-A-Vis CBCT-Derived 3D Cephalograms

Overview
Journal J Clin Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2021 Feb 5
PMID 33540549
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The aim of the retrospective observational study was to compare the precision of landmark identification and its reproducibility using cone beam computed tomography-derived 3D cephalograms and digital lateral cephalograms in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients.

Methods: Cephalograms of thirty-one (31) North Indian children (18 boys and 13 girls) with a unilateral cleft lip and palate, who were recommended for orthodontic treatment, were selected. After a thorough analysis of peer-reviewed articles, 20 difficult-to-trace landmarks were selected, and their reliability and reproducibility were studied. These were subjected to landmark identification to evaluate interobserver variability; the coordinates for each point were traced separately by three different orthodontists (OB, OB, OB). Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive and inferential statistics with paired -tests to compare the differences measured by the two methods. Real-scale data are presented in mean ± SD. A -value less than 0.05 was considered as significant at a 95% confidence level.

Results: When comparing, the plotting of points posterior nasal spine (PNS) ( < 0.05), anterior nasal spine (ANS) ( < 0.01), upper 1 root tip ( < 0.05), lower 1 root tip ( < 0.05), malare ( < 0.05), pyriforme ( < 0.05), porion ( < 0.01), and basion ( < 0.05) was statistically significant.

Conclusion: In patients with a cleft lip and palate, the interobserver identification of cephalometric landmarks was significantly more precise and reproducible with cone beam computed tomography -derived cephalograms vis-a-vis digital lateral cephalograms.

Citing Articles

Finite element analysis of maxillary orthodontic therapies with variable alveolar bone grafts under occlusal forces in patient with unilateral cleft lip and palate.

Zhang Z, Li C, Zheng Q, Shi B, Liu R Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024; 12:1448286.

PMID: 39564103 PMC: 11573579. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1448286.


New Approaches and Technologies in Orthodontics.

Perillo L, dApuzzo F, Grassia V J Clin Med. 2024; 13(9).

PMID: 38730999 PMC: 11084780. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13092470.


Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Has Asymmetry of Bony Orbits: A Retrospective Study.

Kormi E, Peltola E, Lusila N, Heliovaara A, Leikola J, Suojanen J J Pers Med. 2023; 13(7).

PMID: 37511680 PMC: 10381611. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13071067.


Craniofacial Cephalometric Morphology in Caucasian Adult Patients with Cleft Palate Only (CPO).

Zawislak A, Wedrychowska-Szulc B, Grocholewicz K, Janiszewska-Olszowska J Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(12).

PMID: 37370953 PMC: 10297427. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13122058.


Comparison of palatal volume and surface changes between bone-borne and tooth-tissue-borne maxillary expansion on cone beam computed tomography digital cast models.

Abdelsalam R, Nucci L, Carrino R, Shahen S, Abdelaziz F, Fahim F Angle Orthod. 2023; .

PMID: 36719265 PMC: 10117217. DOI: 10.2319/040922-278.1.


References
1.
Park J, Baumrind S, Curry S, Carlson S, Boyd R, Oh H . Reliability of 3D dental and skeletal landmarks on CBCT images. Angle Orthod. 2019; 89(5):758-767. PMC: 8111847. DOI: 10.2319/082018-612.1. View

2.
Ercan E, Celikoglu M, Buyuk S, Sekerci A . Assessment of the alveolar bone support of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Angle Orthod. 2015; 85(6):1003-8. PMC: 8612053. DOI: 10.2319/092614-691.1. View

3.
Naji P, Alsufyani N, Lagravere M . Reliability of anatomic structures as landmarks in three-dimensional cephalometric analysis using CBCT. Angle Orthod. 2013; 84(5):762-72. PMC: 8641267. DOI: 10.2319/090413-652.1. View

4.
Neiva M, Soares A, Lisboa C, de Vasconcellos Vilella O, Motta A . Evaluation of cephalometric landmark identification on CBCT multiplanar and 3D reconstructions. Angle Orthod. 2014; 85(1):11-7. PMC: 8634811. DOI: 10.2319/120413-891.1. View

5.
Chien P, Parks E, Eraso F, Hartsfield J, Roberts W, 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(5):262-73. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/81889955. View