Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2011; 05(04): 451-458
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698918
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

A Comparison of Three-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Cephalometric Evaluations of Children with Cleft Lip and Palate

Ozlem Tulunoglu
a   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
,
Elcin Esenlik
b   Department of Ortodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey.
,
Ayse Gulsen
c   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
,
Ibrahim Tulunoglu
d   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
30 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the consistency of orthodontic measurement performed on cephalometric films and 3D CT images of cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients. Methods: The study was conducted with 2D radiographs and 3D CT images of 9 boys and 6 girls aged 7-12 with CLP. 3D reconstructions were performed using MIMICS software. Results: Frontal analysis found statistical differences for all parameters except occlusal plane tilt (OcP-tilt) and McNamara analysis found statistical differences in 2D and 3D measurements for all parameters except ANS-Me and Co-Gn; Steiner analysis found statistical differences for all parameters except SND, SNB and Max1-SN. Intra-group variability in measurements was also very low for all parameters for both 2D and 3D images. Conclusions: Study results indicate significant differences between measurements taken from 2D and 3D images in patients with cleft lip and palate. (Eur J Dent 2011;5:451-458)

Key words:

3D reconstruction - Computerized tomography - Cephalometry - CLP
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Kragskov J, Bosch G, Gyldensted C, Sindet-Pedersen S. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1997;34:111- 116.
  • 2 Kumar V, Ludlow J, Cevidanes LHS, Mol A. In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2008;78:873-879.
  • 3 Katsumata A, Fujishita M, Maeda M, Ariji Y, Ariji E, Langlais RP. 3D-CT evaluation of facial asymmetry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;99:212-220.
  • 4 Krarup S, Darvann TA, Larsen P, Marsh JL, Kreiborg S. Three-dimensional analysis of Mandibular growth and tooth eruption. J Anat 2005;207:669-682.
  • 5 Swennen GRJ, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:410-416.
  • 6 Cevidanes LHS, Styner MA, Proffit R. Image analysis and superimposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:611-618.
  • 7 Halazonetis DJ. From 2-dimensional cephalograms to 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:627-637.
  • 8 Adams GL, Gansky SA, Miller AJ, Harrell WE JR, Hatcher DC. Comparison between traditional 2-dimensional cephalometry and a 3-dimensional approach on human dry skulls. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:395-396.
  • 9 Nakamura N, Suzuki A, Takahashi H, Honda Y, Sasaguri M, Ohishi M. A longitudinal study on influence of primary facial deformities on maxillofacial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005;42: 633-640.
  • 10 Maeda M, Katsumata A, Ariji Y, Muramatsu A, Yoshida K, Goto S, Kurita K, Ariji E. 3D-CT evaluation of facial asymmetry in patients with maxillofacial deformities. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;102:382-390.
  • 11 Alves PVM, Bolognese AM, Zhao L. Three-dimensional computerized orthognathic surgical treatment planning. Clin Plast Surg 2007;34:427-436.
  • 12 Kitaura H, Yonetsu K, Kitamori H, Kobayashi K, Nakamura T. Standardization of 3-D CT measurements for length and angles by matrix transformation in the 3-D coordinate system. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1999;37:349-356.
  • 13 Moshiri M, Scarfe WC, Hilgers ML, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:550-560.
  • 14 Varghese S, Kailasam V, Padmanabhan S, Vicraman B, Chithranjan A. Evaluation of the accuracy of linear measurements on spiral computed tomography-derived three-dimensional images and its comparison with digital cephalometric radiography. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2010;39:216-223.
  • 15 Singh GD, Levy-Bercowski D, Yanez MA, Santiago PE. Three-dimensional facial morphology following surgical repair of unilateral cleft lip and palate in patients after nasoalveolar molding. Orthod Craniofacial Res 2007;10:161- 166.
  • 16 Duffy S, Noar JH, Evans RD, Sanders R. Three-dimensional analysis of the child cleft face. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2000;37:137-144.
  • 17 Suri S, Utreja A, Khandelwal N, Mago SK. Craniofacial Computerized Tomography analysis of the midface of patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008;134:418-429.
  • 18 Feichtinger M, Zemann W, Mossböck R, Karcher H. Threedimensional evaluation of secondary alveolar bone grafting using a 3D navigation system based on computed tomography: a two year follow up. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;46:278-282.
  • 19 Yoon YJ, Kim DH, Yu PS, Kim HJ, Choi EH, Kim KW. Effect of head rotation on posteroanterior cephalometric radiographs. Angle Orthod 2002;72:36-42.
  • 20 Hsiao TH, Chang Hong-Po, Liu KM. A method of magnification correction for posteroanterior radiographic cephalometry. Angle Orthod 1997;67:137-142.
  • 21 Gribel BF, Gribel MN, Manzi FR, Brook SL, McNamara Jr JA. From 2D to 3D : an algorithm to derive normal values for 3-dimensional computerized assessment. Angle Orthod 2011;81:5-12.
  • 22 Van Vlijmen OJC, Maal TJJ, Berge SJ, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. A comparison between two-dimensional and three dimensional cephalometry on frontal radiographs and cone beam computed tomography scans of human skulls. Eur J Oral Science 2009;117:300- 305.
  • 23 Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983;83:382–390.
  • 24 Ahlqvist J, Eliasson S, Welander U. The effect of projection errors on cephalometric length measurements. Eur J Orthod 1986;8:141–148.
  • 25 Major PW, Johnson DE, Hesse KL, Glover KE. Effect of head orientation on posteroanterior cephalometric landmark identification. Angle Orthod 1996;66: 51-60.
  • 26 Van Vlijmen OJC, Berge SJ, Swennen GRJ, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Comparison of cephalometric radyographs obtained from cone beam computed tomography scans and conventional radiographs. J Oral Maxillaofac Surg 2009;67:92-97.
  • 27 Malkoç S, Sarı Z, Üşümez S, Koyutürk AE. The effect of head rotation on cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orhod 2005;27:315-321.
  • 28 Major PW, Johnson DE, Hesse KL, Glover KE. Landmark identification error in posteroanterior cephalometrics. Angle Orthod 1996;64:447-454.
  • 29 Lou L, Lagravere MO, Compton S, Major PV, Flores-Mir C. Accuracy of measurements and reliability of landmark identification with computed tomoraphy (CT) techniques in the maxillofacial area: a systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104:402-411.
  • 30 Hagg U, Cooke MS, Chan TC, Tng TT, Lau PY. The reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks: an experimental study on skulls. Aust Orthod J 1998;15:177–185.
  • 31 Waitzman AA, Posnick JC, Armstrong DC, Pron GE. Craniofacial skeletal measurements based on computed tomography: Part I. Accuracy and reproducibility. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1992;29:112-117.
  • 32 Leonardia R, Annunziatab A, Caltabianoc M. Landmark identification error in posteroanterior cephalometric radiography. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2008;78:761- 765.
  • 33 Yitschaky O, Redlich M, Abed Y, Faerman M, Casap N, Hiller N. Comparison of common hard tissue cephalometric measurements between computed tomography 3D reconstruction and conventional 2D cephalometric images. Angle Orthod 2011;81:13-18.
  • 34 Valeri CJ, Cole TM 3rd, Lele S, Richtsmeier JT. Capturing data from three-dimensional surfaces using fuzzy landmarks. Am J Phys Anthropol 1998;107:113-124.
  • 35 Williams FL, Richtsmeier JT. Comparison of mandibular landmarks from computed tomography and 3D digitizer data. Clin Anat 2003;16:494-500.
  • 36 Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements.1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971;60:111-127.
  • 37 Troulis MJ, Everett P, Seldin EB, Kikinis R, Kaban LB. Development of a three-dimensional treatment planning system based on computed tomographic data. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;31:349-357.
  • 38 Richtmeier JT, Paik C, Elfert PC, Cole TM, Dahlman HR. Precision, repeatibility and validation of the localization of cranial landmarks using computed scans. Cleft-Palate Craniofac J 1995;32:217-227.
  • 39 Cavalcanti MGP, Rocha SS, Vanier MW. Craniofacial measurements base on 3D-CT volume rendering implications for clinical applications. Dentomaxillaofac Radiol 2004;33:170-176.