Reliability of anatomic structures as landmarks in three-dimensional cephalometric analysis using CBCT

Naji, Pegah; Alsufyani, Noura; Lagravère, Manuel O.

doi:10.2319/090413-652.1

Cited by 62 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is implicit that to developing a truly 3D cephalometric analysis requires identification of landmarks on complex curved structures along the three planes of space. For this reason, some of the definitions of the landmarks used in 2D need to be updated (eg Porion); while some 2D landmarks cannot be used, as they simply do not exist in 3D (eg Articulare) as they are the result of 2D projections of structures laying on different planes . Moreover, different structures are characterized by different features so that placing a landmark at the central part of a concave structure (eg Sella Turcica) is quite different from placing a landmark on an area of maximum curvature (eg Gonion), or at the outermost point of a projection (eg Anterior Nasal Spine).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, comprehensive definitions of landmarks along all three directions (ie sagittal, vertical and transversal) are crucial to decrease the uncertainties in landmark identification. As done previously for 2D cephalometric analyses , it is essential to develop and validate standardized protocols to define and identify novel landmarks in 3D . Trpkova and co‐workers made a ranking of the most reliable 2D landmarks along the sagittal and vertical directions in their systematic review .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

3D landmarks of Craniofacial Imaging and subsequent considerations on superimpositions in orthodontics—The Aarhus perspective

Cattaneo

Yung

Holm

et al. 2019

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structured Abstract Objective (a) To evaluate intra‐ and inter‐observer reliability in landmarks placement along the three planes of space on cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) data sets; (b) To evaluate whether the reliability of each landmark differs in CBCT scans characterized by two different voxel dimension and quality. Setting and Sample Population A total of 84 scans were used in this study: 49 scans were taken with the NewTom 3G, and 35 scans were taken with the NewTom 5G. The scans were characterized by an isotropic voxel dimension of 0.36 and 0.30 mm for the NewTom 3G and the NewTom 5G, respectively. Methods A total of 13 landmarks were placed according to the corresponding definitions in 3D, also presented in this study: Foramen Spinosum (R/L), Nasion, Sella, Gonion (R/L), Pogonion, Menton, A point, Anterior nasal spine, Posterior nasal spine, Basion, Cribriform Plate (CR). Intra‐ and inter‐observer reliability and Intra‐class correlation coefficients (ICC) ICC for landmarks identification were assessed. Five reference and registration planes based on the above‐mentioned landmarks were also presented. Results ICC both for the intra‐ and inter‐observer measurements had a score larger than 0.9 in all directions, except in the sagittal direction for CR. Regarding intra‐ and inter‐observer reliability, only N, S, and Ba scored well in all directions. Conclusions Most of the landmarks analysed displayed a high reliability along at least 2 directions. The choice of landmarks to define registration and superimposition planes must be carefully selected, as the reliability of these planes is inherited from the one of the landmarks defining them.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D landmarks of Craniofacial Imaging and subsequent considerations on superimpositions in orthodontics—The Aarhus perspective

Cattaneo

Yung

Holm

et al. 2019

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[7][8][9][10] These studies only identified the usefulness of CBCT images in staging periodontitis but did not further investigate whether these measurements could be repeatedly carried out in follow-up CBCT images since the same measuring point has rarely been determined in different 3D images. 11,12 Furthermore, there are no specific guidelines about how to analyse this type of 3D images.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A six-site method for the evaluation of periodontal bone loss in cone-beam CT images

Guo

et al. 2016

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: In contrast to two-dimensional planar images, a measuring point is hardly repeatedly determined in a CBCT image when alveolar bone loss is assessed. Thus, the aim of the present study was to propose a six-site measuring method, which is closely related to anatomical structure, for the evaluation of alveolar bone loss in CBCT images. Methods: 150 measuring points in 11 molars and 14 premolars from 6 patients (2 males and 4 females) were included. CBCT images of the teeth were acquired prior to periodontal surgery. Four observers measured the distances between cemento-enamel junctions and the apical bases of the periodontal bone defect at the mesio-buccal, mid-buccal, disto-buccal, mesio-lingual/palatal, mid-lingual/palatal and disto-lingual/palatal sites in CBCT images. Direct measurements of the six sites were correspondingly obtained in the subsequent periodontal surgeries. Differences between the distances measured in the CBCT images and during the surgery were analysed. Interobserver and intraobserver variances were tested. Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the surgical and CBCT measurements (p 5 0.84). Diagnostic coincidence rates of four observers were 86.7%, 87.3%, 88.7% and 88.0%, respectively. The interobserver (p 5 0.95) and intraobserver (p 5 0.30) variances were not significant. Conclusions: The six-site measuring method validated in the present study may be a useful three-dimensional measuring method for the evaluation of periodontal disease.

show abstract

“…Potere (2008), for instance, tested for positional accuracy of Landsat Geocover dataset using 436 control points located in 109 cities; Becek and Ibrahim (2011) estimated the positional accuracy of runways compiled from multiples sources using 2045 controls. Other useful studies have been carried out in this respect in other parts of the world (Yousefzadeh and Mojaradi, 2012;Naji et al, 2013;Pujotomo and Sudibyakto, 2009). Although the positional accuracies of individual datasets are assessed, the total uncertainties of the integrated data are rarely determined.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positional Accuracy Assessment for Effective Shoreline Change Analyses

Boye

2016

Ghana Mining Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The usefulness of any geographic data depends on its fitness for a particular purpose. The critical measure of that fitness is referred to as data quality. Data quality may be expressed in terms of several indicators such as attributes, temporal or positional accuracies. In this research, positional accuracy assessment was carried out on two datasets using Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) technique. Coordinates of nineteen ground controls points were measured in the field using Differential Global Positioning System technique which served as a reference base. The coordinates of these points were compared with their corresponding positions extracted from the two datasets, Town Sheet (1: 2500) and orthophoto (1: 5000). The Town Sheet was scanned, rescaled (1:5000) and georeferenced in Ghana Meter Grid coordinate system to conform to the orthophoto. The digitised Town Sheet and the reference base were superimposed with the orthophoto serving as backdrop in GIS environment. Positional error of 1.23 m was obtained for points extracted from the Town Sheet, while an error of 2.79 m was registered for points from the orthophoto. Shoreline features extracted from these two datasets and appended for shoreline change analysis recorded a total positional error of 3.98 m. The study has shown that the original scale (large) of the Town Sheet may have contributed significantly to the quality of data extracted. In the orthophoto, though geometrically rectified, the scale representation of a unit measure on the photo explains the uncertainties in the dataset. The integrated dataset obviously bore the cumulative effect of the input datasets. It is concluded that for the purpose of shoreline change analysis, such as shoreline change trends, large scale data sources should be used where possible for accurate decision-making. It is recommended that the positional accuracy of any spatial data be ascertained before using it to support decision.

show abstract

Reliability of anatomic structures as landmarks in three-dimensional cephalometric analysis using CBCT

Cited by 62 publications

References 28 publications

3D landmarks of Craniofacial Imaging and subsequent considerations on superimpositions in orthodontics—The Aarhus perspective

3D landmarks of Craniofacial Imaging and subsequent considerations on superimpositions in orthodontics—The Aarhus perspective

A six-site method for the evaluation of periodontal bone loss in cone-beam CT images

Positional Accuracy Assessment for Effective Shoreline Change Analyses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About