Ramírez HJV, Oropeza SJG, Flores LA

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 84-87
PDF size: 263.02 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The objective of the present study was to determine the differences between cephalometric measurements obtained by two different methods: cone-beam tomography and digital lateral head film. Material and methods: Measurements were performed (anterior facial height, mandibular length, upper incisor to the A-Pog line, lower incisor to the A-Pog line, ANS-PNS, ANB angle) on 30 patients by means of lateral digital radiography and cone-beam. The statistic test used was the t-Student. Results: The measurement that presented a statistically significant difference was the mandibular length (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Measurements performed in cone-beam scans for a 3D cephalometric analysis did not show evidence of being more effective or reliable in comparison with measurements performed in 2D.

REFERENCES

1. Athanasios Athanasiou. Orthodontic cephalometry. Mosby Wolfe 1995.

2. Jacobson A, Richard L. Radiographic cephalometry from basics to 3 D Chicago Quintessence books; 2006.

3. Ahlgvist J, Eliasson S, Welander U. The effect of projection errors on cephalometric length measurements. Eur J Orthod. 1986; 8 (3): 141-148.

4. Swennen GRJ, Schutyser F. Three dimensional cephalometry. Belgium. 2005.

5. Kumar V, LudlowJ, Soares CLH. In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78 (5): 873-879.

6. Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod. 1983; 83: 382-390.

7. Navarro R de L, Oltramari-Navarro PV, Fernandes TM. Comparison of manual and digital lateral CBCT cephalometric analyses. J Appl Oral Sci. 2013; 2 (21): 167-176.

8. Grauer D, Cevidanes LS, Proffit WR. Working with DICOM craniofacial images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136 (3): 460-470.

9. Bruntz LQ, Palomo JM, Baden S, Hans MG. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130: 340-348.

10. Kumar V, Ludlow JB, Mol A, Cevidanes L. Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007; 36: 263-269.

11. Cattaneo PM, Bloch CB, Calmar D, Hjortshoj M, Melsen B. Comparison between conventional and cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134: 798-802.

12. Pittayapat P, Limchaichana-Bolstad N, Willems G, Jacobs R. Three-dimensional cephalometric analysis in orthodontics: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2014; 17 (2): 69-91.

13. Moreira CR, Sales MA, Lopes PM. Assessment of linear and angular measurements on three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographic images. Oral Surg Oral Med Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 108 (3): 430-436.

14. Grauer D, Cevidanes LS, Styner MA, Heulfe I, Harmon ET, Zhu H et al. Accuracy and landmark error calculation using cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80: 286-294.

15. 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 lateralcephalometric radiography: an in vitro study. J Craniofac Surg. 2014; 25 (5): 1710-1713.

16. — Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Reliability and the smallest detectable difference of measurements on 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140: e107-114.

17. — Halazonetis DJ. From 2-dimensional cephalograms to 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127: 627-637.

18. — Swennen GR, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130: 410-416.

19. — Yu SH, Nahm DS, Baek SH. Reliability of landmark identification on monitor-displayed lateral cephalometric images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133: 790.e1-6.

20. — http://www.nemotec.com/nemoceph3D-0S_catalogo.php