CBCT craniometric measurements are accurate to a subvoxel size and potentially can be used as a quantitative orthodontic diagnostic tool. Two-dimensional cephalometric norms cannot be readily used for three-dimensional measurements because of differences in measurement accuracy between the two exams.

The term "asymmetry" is used to make reference to dissimilarity between homologous elements, altering the balance between structures. Facial asymmetry is common in the overall population and is often presented subclinically. Nevertheless, on occasion, significant facial asymmetry results not only in functional, but also esthetic issues. Under these conditions, its etiology should be carefully investigated in order to achieve an adequate treatment plan. Facial asymmetry assessment comprises patient's first interview, extra- as well as intraoral clinical examination, and supplementary imaging examination. Subsequent asymmetry treatment depends on patient's age, the etiology of the condition and on the degree of disharmony, and might include from asymmetrical orthodontic mechanics to orthognathic surgery. Thus, the present study aims at addressing important aspects to be considered by the orthodontist reaching an accurate diagnosis and treatment plan of facial asymmetry, in addition to reporting treatment of some patients carriers of such challenging disharmony.

Mandibular asymmetry was not independently associated with sex, age, or absence of posterior teeth. The only verified independent association was between mandibular asymmetry and sagittal jaw relationship.

No abstract

Objective: To test the accuracy of a mathematical model (algorithm) that corrects measurements made on conventional lateral head films to corresponding dimensions observed in a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan in human subjects. Materials and Methods: Thirteen subjects had lateral cephalograms taken with a conventional cephalometric machine as well as a CBCT scan. Measurements of midface length, mandibular length, and lower anterior face height (LAFH) from both examinations were calculated. Two other groups of measurements were derived mathematically from the dimensions directly quantified on the lateral cephalogram: the magnification correction group and the algorithm correction group. The data were analyzed statistically, using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: All measurements from the lateral cephalogram were significantly different from the corresponding measurements derived from the CBCT. Simply taking into account the image magnification did not correct the 2-dimensional (2D) linear measurement obtained from a conventional cephalogram into a 3-dimensional (3D) linear measurement made on a CBCT scan, unless the structures from which the distance will be measured are located on the midsagittal plane. When the algorithm was used to correct the 2D measurements, however, there were no statistically significant differences between the CBCT group and the algorithm group. Conclusions: Using the mathematical formula presented herein, 2D cephalometric measurements from landmarks both on and off the midsagittal plane can be corrected into a 3D CBCT measurement with accuracy. By applying this algorithm to other existing cephalometric longitudinal growth studies, control groups and standards for CBCT images could be derived without exposing untreated subjects to radiation. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:3-10.)