International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 4 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2011 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparison of the Reliability of Anatomic Landmarks based on PA Cephalometric Radiographs and 3D CT Scans in Patients with Facial Asymmetry

Kamal Bajaj, Pooja Rathee, Pradeep Jain, Vasim Raja Panwar

Keywords : Frontal cephalometry, Lateral cephalometry, 3D CT scan

Citation Information : Bajaj K, Rathee P, Jain P, Panwar VR. Comparison of the Reliability of Anatomic Landmarks based on PA Cephalometric Radiographs and 3D CT Scans in Patients with Facial Asymmetry. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011; 4 (3):213-223.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1112

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-12-2011

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2011; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction: Conventional cephalometry is an inexpensive and well-established method for evaluating patients with dentofacial deformities. However, patients with major deformities and in particular asymmetric cases are difficult to evaluate by conventional cephalometry. Reliable and accurate evaluation in the orbital and midfacial region in craniofacial syndrome patients is difficult due to inherent geometric magnification, distortion and the superpositioning of the craniofacial structures on cephalograms. Both two- and three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) have been proposed to alleviate some of these difficulties. Aims and objectives: The aim of our study is to compare the reliability of anatomic cephalometric points obtained from the two modalities: Conventional posteroanterior cephalograms and 3D CT of patients with facial asymmetry, by comparison of intra- and interobserver variation of points recorded from frontal X-ray to those recorded from 3D CT. Materials and methods: The sample included nine patients (5 males and 4 females) with an age range of 14 to 21 years and a mean age of 17.11 years, whose treatment plan called for correction of facial asymmetry. All CT scans were measured twice by two investigators with 2 weeks separation for determination of intraobserver and interobserver variability. Similarly, all measurement points on the frontal cephalograms were traced twice with 2 weeks separation. The tracings were superimposed and the average distance between replicate points readings were used as a measure of intra- and interobserver reliability. Intra-and interobserver variations are calculated for each method and the data were imported directly into the statistical program, SPSS 10.0.1 for windows. Results: Intraobserver variations of points defined on 3D CT were small compared with frontal cephalograms. The intraobserver variations ranged from 0 (A1, B1) to 0.6 mm with the variations less than 0.5 mm for most of the points. Interobserver variations of points between first and second tracings defined on PA Ceph and 3D CT were less than 1.5 mm for all the points. A direct comparison of frontal cephalometry and 3D CT using intraobserver variation for the first observer showed that 3D CT was more reliable than frontal cephalometry for 11 points. Direct comparison of frontal cephalometry and 3D CT for the second observer showed a similar tendency with 14 points significantly more reliable for 3D CT. Comparison of frontal cephalometry and 3D CT using interobserver variation for the tracings showed that 3D CT was more reliable than frontal cephalometry. Summary and conclusion: The study has shown that 3D CT is consistently more accurate and reliable than conventional frontal cephalometry. Unfortunately, the cost of a computerized tomography examination is considerable; this means that, at this stage, its use by surgeons and orthodontists is a last resort.


PDF Share
  1. Bishara Samir E, Burkey Paul S, Kharouf John G. Dental and facial asymmetries: A review. Angle Orthodontist 1994;2: 89-98.
  2. Legan HL. Surgical correction of patients with asymmetries, Sem Orthod, September 1998;3(4).
  3. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971; 60:111-27.
  4. Kharbanda OP. Computerized cephalometric digitization and analysis systems: An overview. In ‘The Quest’, 3rd all India orthodontic postgraduate students’ convention manual 1999.
  5. El-Mangoury EH, Shaheen SI, Mostafa YA. Landmark identification in computerized posterior-anterior cephalometrics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1987;91:57-61.
  6. Trpkova B, Prasad NG, Lam EW, Raboud D, Glover KE, Major PW. Assessment of facial asymmetries from posteroanterior cephalograms: Validity of reference lines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:512-20.
  7. Hixon EH. Cephalometrics and longitudinal research. Am J Orthod 1960;46:36-42.
  8. Tyndall, et al. Positional changes of the mandibular condyle assessed by three-dimensional computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;50:1164-72.
  9. Kragskov J, et al. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J Mar 1997; 34(2):111-16.
  10. Hixon EH. The norm concept and cephalometrics. Am J Orthod 1956;42:898-919.
  11. Moyers RE, Bookstein FL. The inappropriateness of conventional cephalometrics. Am J Orthod 1979;75:599-617.
  12. Bookstein FL. The geometry of craniofacial invariants. Am J Orthod 1983;83:221-34.
  13. Moss ML, et al. Finite element modeling of craniofacial growth. Am J Orthod 1985;87:453-72.
  14. Athanasiou AE (Ed). Orthodontic Cephalometry, Mosby-Wolfe 1995.
  15. Peck Sheldon, Peck Leena, Kataja Matti. Skeletal asymmetry in esthetically pleasing faces. Angle Orthodontist 1991;1:43-48.
  16. Waitzman AA, et al. Craniofacial skeletal measurements based on computed tomography (Part I). Accuracy and reproducibility. Cleft Palate Craniofac J Sep 1992;29(5):489.
  17. Hildebolt CF, Vannier MW, Knapp RH. “Validation study of skull three-dimensional computerized tomography measurements”. Am J Phys Anthropol 1990;82:283-94.
  18. Salzman JA. Limitations of roentgenographic cephalometrics. Am J Orthod 1964;50:168-88.
  19. Carlsson GE. Error in X-ray cephalometry. A method study and a longitudinal investigation of the facial skeleton on series with and without natural teeth over a 5-year period. Scand Odont J 1967;75:99-129.
  20. Midtgård J, Bjørk G, Linder-Aronson S. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks and errors of measurements of cephalometric cranial distances. Angle Orthod 1974;44:56-61.
  21. Savara BS, Tracy WE, Miller PA. Analysis of errors in cephalometric measurements of three-dimensional distances on the human mandible. Arch Oral Biol 1966;11:209-17.
  22. Stirrups DR. A comparison of the accuracy of cephalometric landmark location between two screen/film combinations. Angle Orthod 1987;59:211-15.
  23. Richardson A. An investigation into the reproducibility of some points, planes and lines used in cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod 1966;52:637-51.
  24. Cohen AM. Uncertainty in cephalometrics. Br J Orthod 1984; 11:44-48.
  25. Darendeliler MA, et al. Comparison of radiation levels from computed tomography and conventional dental radiographs. Aust Orthod J 2003;19:67-75.
  26. Diederichs CG, Engelke WGH, Richter B, Klaus-Peter Hermann, Oestmann JW. Must radiation dose for CT of the maxilla and mandible be higher than that for conventional panoramic radiography? American Journal of Neuroradiology Oct 1996;17:1758-60.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.