Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Published in:

01-08-2011 | Original article

Accuracy of anatomical landmark identification using different CBCT- and MSCT-based 3D images

An in vitro study

Authors: J. Medelnik, K. Hertrich, S. Steinhäuser-Andresen, U. Hirschfelder, Dr. E. Hofmann

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 4/2011

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of anatomical landmarks and the accuracy of different cone-beam CTs (CBCTs/DVTs) and a multislice spiral CT (MSCT) scanner.

Methods

A human, fresh-frozen cadaver head was scanned with four CBCTs (Accuitomo 3D, 3D eXam, Pax Reve 3D, Pax Zenith 3D) and one MSCT (SOMATOM Sensation 64) scanner. The three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the volume data sets and location of the anthropometric landmarks (n=11), together with linear (n=5) and angular (n=1) measurements were carried out by three examiners using the program VoXim® 6.1. The measurements were taken twice at a 14-day interval. Descriptive analyses were made and the standard deviations were used to compare differences in the accuracy of landmark identification.

Results

The descriptive statistics showed distinct differences in the reference points in the three axes of the coordinate system. Because of anatomical and morphological factors, the pogonion and gnathion reference points displayed higher standard deviations when set on the transverse plane (SD_CBCT Pog: 0.66–1.57 mm; SD_MSCT Pog: 0.14–1.09 mm; SD_CBCT Gn: 1.05–1.77 mm; SD_MSCT Gn: 0.20–0.85 mm), thus showing less accuracy. However, standard deviations on the sagittal and vertical planes were smaller. Genion, anterior nasal spine and infradentale had very low standard deviations on all three planes. The distance (Mfl-Mfr) and angle (Krl-Krr-Ge) revealed significantly smaller standard deviations in the MSCT (SD_CBCT Krl-Krr-Ge: 0.51–0.75 mm; SD_MSCT Krl-Krr-Ge: 0.22 mm).

Conclusion

The CBCT devices evaluated in this study are suitable for taking exact 3D measurements of anatomical structures and meet all requirements for 3D cephalometric analysis.

Baumrind S, Frantz RC (1971) The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 60:111–127PubMedCrossRef

Brown AA, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP et al (2009) Linear accuracy of cone beam CT derived images. Angle Orthod 79:150–157PubMedCrossRef

Cavalcanti MGP, Rocha SS, Vannier MW (2004) Craniofacial measurements based on 3D-CT volume rendering: implications for clinical applications. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:170–176PubMedCrossRef

Chien PC, Parks ET, Eraso F et al (2009) Comparison of reliability in anatomic landmark identification using two-dimensional digital chephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38:262–273PubMedCrossRef

Coppenrath E, Draenert F, Lechel U et al (2008) Schnittbildverfahren zur dentomaxillofacialen Diagnostik: Dosisvergleich von Dental-MSCT und New Tom 9000 CBCT. Fortschr Rontgenstr 180:396–401CrossRef

Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ et al (2010) Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137(1):16.e1–16.e6; discussion 16–17PubMedCrossRef

De Oliveira AE, Cevidanes LH, Phillips C et al (2009) Observer reliability of three-dimensional cephalometric landmark identification on cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 107:256–265CrossRef

Eggers G, Klein J, Welzel T et al (2008) Geometric accuracy of digital volume tomography and conventional computed tomography. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46:639–644PubMedCrossRef

Greiner M, Greiner A, Hirschfelder U (2007) Variance of landmarks in digital evaluations: Comparison between CT-based and conventional digital lateral cephalometric radiographs. J Orofac Orthop 68:290–298PubMedCrossRef

10.

Hofmann E, Medelnik J, Fink M et al (2011) Three-dimensional volume tomographic study of the imaging accuracy of impacted teeth: MSCT and DVT comparison – an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr030

11.

Hofmann E, Medelnik J, Keller T et al (2011) Measuring mesiodistal width of impacted maxillary canines. J Orofac Orthod; doi: 10.1007/s00056-010-0005-0

12.

Holberg C, Steinhäuser S, Geis P et al (2005) Cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics: benefits and limitations. J Orofac Orthop 66:434–444PubMedCrossRef

13.

Kobayashi K, Shimoda S, Nakagawa Y et al (2004) Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:228–231PubMed

14.

Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Lagner O et al (2010) Digital volume tomography (DVT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT): an objective examination of dose and image quality. Fortschr Rontgenstr doi: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1245709

15.

Kusnoto B, Evans CA, BeGole EA et al (1999) Assessment of 3-dimensional computer generated cephalometric measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 116:390–399PubMedCrossRef

16.

Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM (2004) Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-New Tom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:291–294PubMedCrossRef

17.

Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y et al (2010) A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part II: On 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol 75:270–274PubMedCrossRef

18.

Loubele M, Guerrero ME, Jacobs R et al (2007) A comparison of jaw dimensional and quality assessments of bone characteristics with cone-beam CT, spiral tomography, and multi-slice spiral CT. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22:446–454PubMed

19.

Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck et al (2009) Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 71:461–468PubMedCrossRef

20.

Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL et al (2006) Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CBMercury, NewTom 3G and i-Cat. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 35:219–226CrossRef

21.

Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M (2008) Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:930–938

22.

Marmulla R, Wörtche R, Mühling J et al (2005) Geometric accuracy of the NewTom 9000 cone-beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 34:28–31PubMedCrossRef

23.

Martin R (1914) Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. Gustav Fischer, Jena

24.

Mischkowski RA, Pulsfort R, Ritter L et al (2007) Geometric accuracy of a newly developed cone-beam device for maxillofacial imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104:551–559PubMedCrossRef

25.

Okano T, Harata Y, Sugihara Y et al (2009) Absorbed and effective doses from cone beam volumetric imaging for implant planning. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38:79–85PubMedCrossRef

26.

Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B et al (2010) Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol, epub ahead of pring

27.

Periago D, Scarfe W, Moshiri M et al (2008) Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. Angle Orthod 78:387–395PubMedCrossRef

28.

Ritter L, Dreiseidler T (2007) Bildqualität – Anforderungen und Einflussfaktoren. In: Zöller JE (Hrsg) Digitale Volumentomographie in der Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde. Grundlagen, Diagnostik und Behandlungsplanung. Quintessenz, Berlin, Chicago, Tokio, Barcelona, Istanbul, London, Mailand, Moskau, Neu-Delhi, Paris, Peking, Prag, Sao Paulo, Seoul, Warschau, S 23–25

29.

Silva MAG, Wolf U, Heinicke F et al (2008) Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:1–5CrossRef

30.

Strateman SA, Huang JC, Maki K et al (2008) Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 37:80–93CrossRef

31.

Suomalainen A, Vehmas T, Kortesniemi M et al (2008) Accuracy of linear measurements using cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 37:10–17PubMedCrossRef

32.

Swennen G, Schutyser F (2006) Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs. cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130:410–416PubMedCrossRef

33.

Titiz I, Laubinger M, Keller T et al (2011) Precision of landmarks – a CT study. Eur J Orthod (accepted for publication)

34.

Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S et al (2005) Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose Cone Beam CT. Eur J Radiol 56:413–417PubMedCrossRef

35.

Valentin J (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:1–332

36.

Ward RE, Jamison PL (1991) Measurement precision and reliability in craniofacial anthropometry: implications and suggestions for clinical applications. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 11:156–164PubMed

Title: Accuracy of anatomical landmark identification using different CBCT- and MSCT-based 3D images
An in vitro study
Authors: J. Medelnik
K. Hertrich
S. Steinhäuser-Andresen
U. Hirschfelder
Dr. E. Hofmann
Publication date: 01-08-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 4/2011
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-011-0032-5

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Accuracy of anatomical landmark identification using different CBCT- and MSCT-based 3D images

An in vitro study

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2011

The topography of displaced canines

What’s new on the dental scene?

Influence of orthognathic surgery on periodontal tissues

Effect of vitamin C on bone formation in the expanded inter-premaxillary suture. Early bone changes

Effects of fixed appliances in correcting Angle Class II on the depth of the posterior airway space

Severe external apical root resorption—local cause or genetic predisposition?