nach oben

Erschienen in:

07.05.2020 | Head and Neck

3D cephalometry on reduced FOV CBCT: skeletal class assessment through AF-BF on Frankfurt plane—validity and reliability through comparison with 2D measurements

verfasst von: Marco Farronato, Cinzia Maspero, Andrea Abate, Cristina Grippaudo, Stephen Thaddeus Connelly, Gianluca Martino Tartaglia

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 11/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To test the validity of a novel protocol for 3D sagittal jaw discrepancy assessment (skeletal class determination) through comparison with common 2D indexes by the use of reduced FOV (10 × 10) CBCT which shows at least from the Frankfurt plane to the B point vertically, and from the most anterior between A and B point to Po point horizontally.

Methods

A sample of CBCT scans of 109 adult patients (46 females; 63 males; mean age 30 years ± 11.6) equally distributed between I, II and III class was selected. Skeletal class was evaluated with specific software using the distance of A and B point’s projection (AF-BF) on FHp (Frankfurt horizontal plane) and compared to 2D common indexes (ANB and Witts appraisal). The validity and reliability of the aforementioned analyses were determined using intra-class correlation coefficients, quadratic weighted Cohen’s K and sensitivity.

Result

A selected range of values of 2.5 ± 2.5 AF-BF showed a solid correlation with the ANB angle (r = 0.846, K = 0.838, p < 0.001) and moderate with Wits appraisal (r = 0.723, K = 0.720, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

AF-BF showed high reliability in skeletal class determination on reduced FOV CBCT without the use of S and N cephalometric landmarks.

Key Points

• Reduced FOV CT allows skeletal class determination for orthodontic purposes.

• A new 3D-reduced FOV cephalometry is proposed.

• AF-BF is a reliable alternative to ANB.

Broadbent H (1931) A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1:45–66

Haynes S, Chau MNY (1995) The reproducibility and repeatability of the Wits analysis. Am J Orthod 107:640–647

Schuster G, Lux CJ, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A (2003) Children with class III malocclusion: development of multivariate statistical models to predict future need for orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod 73:136–145PubMed

Chang HP (1987) Assessment of anteroposterior jaw relationship. Am J Orthod 92:117–122

Oliver GR, Grimes K, Pandis N, Fleming PS (2018) A cross-sectional analysis of Wits and Riedel in adults with skeletal III malocclusion: how informative are they? Orthod Craniofac Res 00:1–6

Moyers RE, Bookstein FL (1979) The inappropriateness of conventional cephalometrics. Am J Orthod 75:599–617PubMed

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

Cattaneo PM, Melsen B (2008) The use of cone-beam computed tomography in an orthodontic department in between research and daily clinic. World J Orthod 9:269–282PubMed

Zamora N, Llamas J, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V (2012) A study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks when undertaking a three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analysis. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 17:e678–e688PubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Lagravere MO, Gordon JM, Guedes IH et al (2009) Reliability of traditional cephalometric landmarks as seen in three-dimensional analysis in maxillary expansion treatments. Angle Orthod 79:1047–1056PubMed

11.

American Association of Orthodontist (2014) Clinical practice guidelines for orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. https://www.aaoinfo.org/practice-management/clinical-practice-guidelines. Accessed 29 Aug 2019

12.

Jacobson A (1975) The “Wits” appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod 67:125–138PubMed

13.

Steiner CC (1953) Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 39:729–755

14.

Downs WB (1948) Variations in facial relationships: their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 34:812–840PubMed

15.

Jacobson A (1976) Application of the “Wits” appraisal. Am J Orthod 70:179–189PubMed

16.

Zamora N, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V (2013) Study between ANB angle and Wits appraisal in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 18:e725–e732 a.33PubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Oenning AC, Jacobs R, Pauwels R, Stratis A, Hedesiu M, Salmon B (2018). Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement. Pediatr Radiol 48:308–316

18.

Firetto MC, Abbinante A, Barbato E et al (2019) National guidelines for dental diagnostic imaging in the developmental age. Radiol Med 124:887–916PubMed

19.

Bonfim MA, Costa AL, Fuziy A, Ximenez ME, Cotrim-Ferreira FA, Ferreira-Santos RI (2016) Cervical vertebrae maturation index estimates on cone beam CT: 3D reconstructions vs sagittal sections. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 45(1):20150162PubMed

20.

Jadu F, Yaffe MJ, Lam EWN (2010) A comparative study of the effective radiation doses from cone beam computed tomography and plain radiography for sialography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 39:257–263PubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Qu X, Li G, Ludlow JB, Zhang Z, Ma X (2010) Effective radiation dose of ProMax 3D cone-beam computerized tomography scanner with different dental protocols. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 110:770–776PubMed

22.

Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B et al (2012) Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 81:267–271PubMed

23.

Rottke D, Patzelt S, Poxleitner P, Schulze D (2013) Effective dose span of ten different cone beam CT devices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42:20120417PubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Colceriu-Şimon IM, Băciuţ M, Ştiufiuc RI et al (2019) Indications and radiation doses of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Med Pharm Rep 92:346–351PubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Li G (2013) Patient radiation dose and protection from cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent 43:63–69PubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Lundström F, Lundström A (1992) Natural head position as a basis for cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod 101:244–247

27.

Abdelkarim A (2019) Cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Dent J (Basel) 7(3):89

28.

Michiels LY, Tourne LP (1990) Nasion true vertical: a proposed method for testing the clinical validity of cephalometric measurements applied to a new cephalometric reference line. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 5:43–52PubMed

29.

Farronato G, Salvadori S, Nolet F, Zoia A, Farronato D (2014) Assessment of inter-and intra-operator cephalometric tracings on cone beam CT radiographs: comparison of the precision of the cone beam CT versus the latero-lateral radiograph tracing. Prog Orthod 15(1):1PubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Bishara SE (1981) Longitudinal cephalometric standards from 5 years of age to adulthood. Am J Orthod 79:35–44PubMed

31.

Jamison JE, Bishara SE, Peterson LC, DeKock WH, Kremenak CR (1982) Longitudinal changes in the maxilla and the maxillary-mandibular relationship between 8 and 17 years of age. Am J Orthod 82:217–230PubMed

32.

Freeman RS (1981) Adjusting ANB angles to reflect the effect of maxillary position. Angle Orthod 51:162–171PubMed

33.

Taylor CM (1969) Changes in the relationship of nasion, point A, and point B and the effect upon ANB. Am J Orthod 56:143–163PubMed

34.

Binder RE (1979) The geometry of cephalometrics. J Clin Orthod 13:258–263PubMed

35.

Bjdl. Krogman WM (1948) The face in profile. An anthropological x-ray investigation on Swedish Children and Conscripts. By Arne Björk. Svensk Tandläkare-Tidskrift, Lund, vol. 40, no. 5B, 180 pp, 34 tables, 65 figures. 1947. Am J Phys Anthropol 6(1): 121–125

36.

Jacobson A (1988) Update on the Wits appraisal. Angle Orthod 58:205–219PubMed

37.

Downs WB (1952) The role of cephalometrics in orthodontic case analysis and diagnosis. Am J Orthod 38:162–182

38.

Hall-Scott J (1994) The maxillary-mandibular planes angle (MMo) bisector: a new reference plane for anteroposterior measurement of the dental bases. Am J Orthod 105:583–591

39.

Schudy FF (1968) The control of vertical overbite in clinical orthodontics. Angle Orthod 38:19–39PubMed

40.

Kim YH (1974) Overbite depth indicator with particular reference to anterior open-bite. Am J Orthod 65:586–611PubMed

41.

Merrifield LL, Cross JJ (1970) Directional forces. Am J Orthod 57:435–464PubMed

42.

Harvold E (1963) Some biologic aspects of orthodontic treatment in the transitional dentition. Am J Orthod 49:1–14

43.

Hassan B, Nijkamp P, Verheij H et al (2013) Precision of identifying cephalometric landmarks with cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Eur J Orthod 35:38–44PubMed

44.

Ludlow JB, Gubler M, Cevidanes L, Mol A (2009) Precision of cephalometric landmark identification: cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional cephalometric views. Am J Orthod 136:312.e1–312.10

45.

Neiva MB, Soares AC, Lisboa Cde O, Vilella Ode V, Motta AT (2015) Evaluation of cephalometric landmark identification on CBCT multiplanar and 3D reconstructions. Angle Orthod 85:11–17PubMed

Titel: 3D cephalometry on reduced FOV CBCT: skeletal class assessment through AF-BF on Frankfurt plane—validity and reliability through comparison with 2D measurements
verfasst von: Marco Farronato
Cinzia Maspero
Andrea Abate
Cristina Grippaudo
Stephen Thaddeus Connelly
Gianluca Martino Tartaglia
Publikationsdatum: 07.05.2020
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 11/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06905-7

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

3D cephalometry on reduced FOV CBCT: skeletal class assessment through AF-BF on Frankfurt plane—validity and reliability through comparison with 2D measurements