Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2016; 43(01): 32-37
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2016.43.1.32
Original Article

Cephalometric Angular Measurements of the Mandible Using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Scans in Koreans

Yong Hyun Kim
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea
,
Seok Joo Kang
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea
,
Hook Sun
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Background We conducted this study to analyze the values of the key cephalometric angular measurements of the mandible using 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography scans.

Methods In the 106 enrolled patients, a 3D cephalometric analysis was performed to measure the angular variables of the mandible. These values were compared between the two sides and between the two sexes.

Results The frontal measurements revealed that the mandibular body curve angle was larger on the left (Lt) side (right [Rt], 141.24±7.54; Lt, 142.68±6.94; P=0.002) and the gonial angle was larger on the right side (Rt, 134.37±8.44; Lt, 131.54±7.14; P<0.001). The sagittal measurements showed that the gonial angle was larger on the right side (Rt, 134.37±8.44; Lt, 131.54±7.14; P>0.05). Further, the transverse measurements revealed that the mandibular body curve angle was larger on the right side (Rt, 140.28±7.05; Lt, 137.56±6.23; P<0.001).

Conclusions These results provide an average of the mandibular angular measurements for the Korean population, establishing a standard for determining surgical patient groups and outcome evaluations in the field of mandible contour surgery.

Keywords

Cephalometry - Three-dimensional - Mandible - Angular


Publication History

Received: 13 March 2015

Accepted: 19 June 2015

Article published online:
20 April 2022

© 2016. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Jegal JJ, Kang SJ, Kim JW. et al. The utility of a three-dimensional approach with T-shaped osteotomy in osseous genioplasty. Arch Plast Surg 2013; 40: 433-439
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wang Y, Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Applying the concepts of innovation strategies to plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132: 483-490
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Szychta P, Rykala J, Kruk-Jeromin J. Individual and ethnic aspects of preoperative planning for posttraumatic rhinoplasty. Eur J Plast Surg 2011; 34: 245-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pacini SJ. Roentgen ray anthropometry of the skull. J Radiol 1922; 3: 230-238
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1931; 1: 45-66
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Kapila S, Conley RS, Harrell Jr WE. The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 24-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Oz U, Orhan K, Abe N. Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 492-500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Liedke GS, Delamare EL, Vizzotto MB. et al. Comparative study between conventional and cone beam CT-synthesized half and total skull cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 136-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cevidanes LH, Styner MA, Proffit WR. Image analysis and superimposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129: 611-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lin HH, Chuang YF, Weng JL. et al. Comparative validity and reproducibility study of various landmark-oriented reference planes in 3-dimensional computed tomographic analysis for patients receiving orthognathic surgery. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0117604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 van Vlijmen OJ, Maal T, Berge SJ. et al. A comparison between 2D and 3D cephalometry on CBCT scans of human skulls. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 39: 156-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 van Vlijmen OJ, Kuijpers MA, Berge SJ. et al. Evidence supporting the use of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc 2012; 143: 241-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Farronato G, Garagiola U, Dominici A. et al. "Ten-point" 3D cephalometric analysis using low-dosage cone beam computed tomography. Prog Orthod 2010; 11: 2-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lee SH, Kil TJ, Park KR. et al. Three-dimensional architectural and structural analysis: a transition in concept and design from Delaire's cephalometric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 43: 1154-1160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bayome M, Park JH, Kook YA. New three-dimensional cephalometric analyses among adults with a skeletal Class I pattern and normal occlusion. Korean J Orthod 2013; 43: 62-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hofer SO, Payne CE. Functional and Aesthetic Outcome Enhancement of Head and Neck Reconstruction through Secondary Procedures. Semin Plast Surg 2010; 24: 309-318
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Schaaf H, Malik CY, Howaldt HP. et al. Evolution of photography in maxillofacial surgery: from analog to 3D photography - an overview. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2009; 1: 39-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Shahidi S, Oshagh M, Gozin F. et al. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks by a designed software. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20110187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lin HS, Li JD, Chen YJ. et al. Comparison of measurements of mandible growth using cone beam computed tomography and its synthesized cephalograms. Biomed Eng Online 2014; 13: 133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Xia JJ, Gateno J, Teichgraeber JF. New clinical protocol to evaluate craniomaxillofacial deformity and plan surgical correction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67: 2093-2106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 van Vlijmen OJ, Maal TJ, Berge SJ. et al. A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional cephalometry on frontal radiographs and on cone beam computed tomography scans of human skulls. Eur J Oral Sci 2009; 117: 300-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Oh S, Kim CY, Hong J. A comparative study between data obtained from conventional lateral cephalometry and reconstructed three-dimensional computed tomography images. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 40: 123-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A. et al. Craniofacial morphometry by photographic evaluations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 103: 327-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Medelnik J, Hertrich K, Steinhauser-Andresen S. et al. Accuracy of anatomical landmark identification using different CBCT- and MSCT-based 3D images: an in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop 2011; 72: 261-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar