Comparison of landmark position between conventional cephalometric radiography and CT scans projected to midsagittal plane
2
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare landmark position between cephalometric radiography and midsagittal plane projected images from 3 dimensional (3D) CT. Methods: Cephalometric radiographs and CT scans were taken from 20 patients for treatment of mandibular prognathism. After selection of landmarks, CT images were projected to the midsagittal plane and magnified to 110% according to the magnifying power of radiographs. These 2 images were superimposed with frontal and occipital bone. Common coordinate system was established on the base of FH plane. The coordinate value of each landmark was compared by paired t test and mean and standard deviation of difference was calculated. Results: The difference was from −0.14 ± 0.65 to −2.12 ± 2.89 mm in X axis, from 0.34 ± 0.78 to −2.36 ± 2.55 mm (6.79 ± 3.04 mm) in Y axis. There was no significant difference only 9 in X axis, and 7 in Y axis out of 20 landmarks. This might be caused by error from the difference of head positioning, by masking the subtle end structures, identification error from the superimposition and error from the different definition. Conclusions: This study revealed innate shortcomings of radiography. For the development of 3D cephalometry, more study was needed. (Korean J Orthod 2008;38(6):427-436)
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare landmark position between cephalometric radiography and midsagittal plane projected images from 3 dimensional (3D) CT. Methods: Cephalometric radiographs and CT scans were taken from 20 patients for treatment of mandibular prognathism. After selection of landmarks, CT images were projected to the midsagittal plane and magnified to 110% according to the magnifying power of radiographs. These 2 images were superimposed with frontal and occipital bone. Common coordinate system was established on the base of FH plane. The coordinate value of each landmark was compared by paired t test and mean and standard deviation of difference was calculated. Results: The difference was from −0.14 ± 0.65 to −2.12 ± 2.89 mm in X axis, from 0.34 ± 0.78 to −2.36 ± 2.55 mm (6.79 ± 3.04 mm) in Y axis. There was no significant difference only 9 in X axis, and 7 in Y axis out of 20 landmarks. This might be caused by error from the difference of head positioning, by masking the subtle end structures, identification error from the superimposition and error from the different definition. Conclusions: This study revealed innate shortcomings of radiography. For the development of 3D cephalometry, more study was needed. (Korean J Orthod 2008;38(6):427-436)
참고문헌 (20)
- Broadbent BH, "A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia", Angle Orthod, 1, pp.45~66 (1931)
- Baumrind S, "The reliability of head film measurements", Landmark identification. Am J Orthod, 60, pp.111~127 (1971)
- Ahlqvist J, "effect of projection errors on cephalometric length measurements", Eur J Orthod, 8, pp.141~148 (1986)
- Midtgard J, "Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks and errors of measurements of cephalometric cranial distances", Angle Orthod, 44, pp.56~61 (1974)
- Tng TT, "of cephalometric landmarks. An experimental study on human skulls", Eur J Orthod, 16, pp.110~120 (1994)
- Houston WJ, "Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs", Eur J Orthod, 8, pp.149~151 (1986)
- Grayson BH, "Analysis of craniofacial asymmetry by multiplane cephalometry", Am J Orthod, 84, pp.217~224 (1983)
- Baumrind S, "-dimensional x-ray stereometry from paired coplanar images: a progress report", Am J Orthod, 84, pp.292~312 (1983)
- Grayson B, "The three-dimensional cephalogram: theory, technique, and clinical application", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 94, pp.327~337 (1988)
- Kusnoto B, "Assessment of 3-dimensional computer-generated cephalometric measurement", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 116, pp.390~399 (1999)
- Rousset MM, "A method for correction of radiographic errors in serial three-dimensional cephalometry", Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 32, pp.50~59 (2003)
- Mozzo P, "A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results", Eur Radiol, 8, pp.1558~1564 (1998)
- Christiansen EL, "- and inter-observer variability and accuracy in the determination of linear and angular measurements in computed tomography. An in vitro and in situ study of human mandibles", Acta Odontol Scand, 44, pp.221~229 (1986)
- Hildebolt CF, "Validation study of skull three-dimensional computerized tomography measurements", Am J Phys Anthropol, 82, pp.283~294 (1990)
- Matteson SR, "A method for three-dimensional image reformation for quantitative cephalometric analysis", J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 47, pp.1053~1061 (1989)
- Kragskov J, "Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans", Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 34, pp.111~116 (1997)
- Adams GL, "Comparison between traditional 2-dimensional cephalometry and a 3-dimensional approach on human dry skulls", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 126, pp.397~409 (2004)
- Park JW, "Formulation of a reference coordinate system of three-dimensional (3D) head and neck images: Part I. Reproducibility of 3D cephalometric landmarks", Korean J Orthod, 35, pp.388~397 (2005)
- Richardson A, "An investigation into the reproducibility of some points, planes, and lines used in cephalometric analysis", Am J Orthod, 52, pp.637~651 (1966)
- Liu JK, "Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 118, pp.535~540 (2000)