Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 11/2020

01-11-2020 | Digital Volume Tomography | Head and Neck

3D cephalometry on reduced FOV CBCT: skeletal class assessment through AF-BF on Frankfurt plane—validity and reliability through comparison with 2D measurements

Authors: Marco Farronato, Cinzia Maspero, Andrea Abate, Cristina Grippaudo, Stephen Thaddeus Connelly, Gianluca Martino Tartaglia

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 11/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To test the validity of a novel protocol for 3D sagittal jaw discrepancy assessment (skeletal class determination) through comparison with common 2D indexes by the use of reduced FOV (10 × 10) CBCT which shows at least from the Frankfurt plane to the B point vertically, and from the most anterior between A and B point to Po point horizontally.

Methods

A sample of CBCT scans of 109 adult patients (46 females; 63 males; mean age 30 years ± 11.6) equally distributed between I, II and III class was selected. Skeletal class was evaluated with specific software using the distance of A and B point’s projection (AF-BF) on FHp (Frankfurt horizontal plane) and compared to 2D common indexes (ANB and Witts appraisal). The validity and reliability of the aforementioned analyses were determined using intra-class correlation coefficients, quadratic weighted Cohen’s K and sensitivity.

Result

A selected range of values of 2.5 ± 2.5 AF-BF showed a solid correlation with the ANB angle (r = 0.846, K = 0.838, p < 0.001) and moderate with Wits appraisal (r = 0.723, K = 0.720, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

AF-BF showed high reliability in skeletal class determination on reduced FOV CBCT without the use of S and N cephalometric landmarks.

Key Points

• Reduced FOV CT allows skeletal class determination for orthodontic purposes.
• A new 3D-reduced FOV cephalometry is proposed.
• AF-BF is a reliable alternative to ANB.
Literature
1.
Broadbent H (1931) A new x-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod 1:45–66
2.
Haynes S, Chau MNY (1995) The reproducibility and repeatability of the Wits analysis. Am J Orthod 107:640–647
3.
Schuster G, Lux CJ, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A (2003) Children with class III malocclusion: development of multivariate statistical models to predict future need for orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod 73:136–145PubMed
4.
Chang HP (1987) Assessment of anteroposterior jaw relationship. Am J Orthod 92:117–122
5.
Oliver GR, Grimes K, Pandis N, Fleming PS (2018) A cross-sectional analysis of Wits and Riedel in adults with skeletal III malocclusion: how informative are they? Orthod Craniofac Res 00:1–6
6.
Moyers RE, Bookstein FL (1979) The inappropriateness of conventional cephalometrics. Am J Orthod 75:599–617PubMed
7.
Pittayapat P, Limchaichana-Bolstad N, Willems G, Jacobs R (2014) Three-dimensional cephalometric analysis in orthodontics: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 17:69–91PubMed
8.
Cattaneo PM, Melsen B (2008) The use of cone-beam computed tomography in an orthodontic department in between research and daily clinic. World J Orthod 9:269–282PubMed
9.
Zamora N, Llamas J, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V (2012) A study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks when undertaking a three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analysis. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 17:e678–e688PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Lagravere MO, Gordon JM, Guedes IH et al (2009) Reliability of traditional cephalometric landmarks as seen in three-dimensional analysis in maxillary expansion treatments. Angle Orthod 79:1047–1056PubMed
11.
12.
Jacobson A (1975) The “Wits” appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod 67:125–138PubMed
13.
Steiner CC (1953) Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 39:729–755
14.
Downs WB (1948) Variations in facial relationships: their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 34:812–840PubMed
15.
Jacobson A (1976) Application of the “Wits” appraisal. Am J Orthod 70:179–189PubMed
16.
Zamora N, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V (2013) Study between ANB angle and Wits appraisal in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 18:e725–e732 a.33PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Oenning AC, Jacobs R, Pauwels R, Stratis A, Hedesiu M, Salmon B (2018). Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement. Pediatr Radiol 48:308–316
18.
Firetto MC, Abbinante A, Barbato E et al (2019) National guidelines for dental diagnostic imaging in the developmental age. Radiol Med 124:887–916PubMed
19.
Bonfim MA, Costa AL, Fuziy A, Ximenez ME, Cotrim-Ferreira FA, Ferreira-Santos RI (2016) Cervical vertebrae maturation index estimates on cone beam CT: 3D reconstructions vs sagittal sections. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 45(1):20150162PubMed
20.
Jadu F, Yaffe MJ, Lam EWN (2010) A comparative study of the effective radiation doses from cone beam computed tomography and plain radiography for sialography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 39:257–263PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Qu X, Li G, Ludlow JB, Zhang Z, Ma X (2010) Effective radiation dose of ProMax 3D cone-beam computerized tomography scanner with different dental protocols. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 110:770–776PubMed
22.
Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B et al (2012) Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 81:267–271PubMed
23.
Rottke D, Patzelt S, Poxleitner P, Schulze D (2013) Effective dose span of ten different cone beam CT devices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42:20120417PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Colceriu-Şimon IM, Băciuţ M, Ştiufiuc RI et al (2019) Indications and radiation doses of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Med Pharm Rep 92:346–351PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
26.
Lundström F, Lundström A (1992) Natural head position as a basis for cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod 101:244–247
27.
Abdelkarim A (2019) Cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Dent J (Basel) 7(3):89
28.
Michiels LY, Tourne LP (1990) Nasion true vertical: a proposed method for testing the clinical validity of cephalometric measurements applied to a new cephalometric reference line. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 5:43–52PubMed
29.
Farronato G, Salvadori S, Nolet F, Zoia A, Farronato D (2014) Assessment of inter-and intra-operator cephalometric tracings on cone beam CT radiographs: comparison of the precision of the cone beam CT versus the latero-lateral radiograph tracing. Prog Orthod 15(1):1PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Bishara SE (1981) Longitudinal cephalometric standards from 5 years of age to adulthood. Am J Orthod 79:35–44PubMed
31.
Jamison JE, Bishara SE, Peterson LC, DeKock WH, Kremenak CR (1982) Longitudinal changes in the maxilla and the maxillary-mandibular relationship between 8 and 17 years of age. Am J Orthod 82:217–230PubMed
32.
Freeman RS (1981) Adjusting ANB angles to reflect the effect of maxillary position. Angle Orthod 51:162–171PubMed
33.
Taylor CM (1969) Changes in the relationship of nasion, point A, and point B and the effect upon ANB. Am J Orthod 56:143–163PubMed
34.
Binder RE (1979) The geometry of cephalometrics. J Clin Orthod 13:258–263PubMed
35.
Bjdl. Krogman WM (1948) The face in profile. An anthropological x-ray investigation on Swedish Children and Conscripts. By Arne Björk. Svensk Tandläkare-Tidskrift, Lund, vol. 40, no. 5B, 180 pp, 34 tables, 65 figures. 1947. Am J Phys Anthropol 6(1): 121–125
36.
Jacobson A (1988) Update on the Wits appraisal. Angle Orthod 58:205–219PubMed
37.
Downs WB (1952) The role of cephalometrics in orthodontic case analysis and diagnosis. Am J Orthod 38:162–182
38.
Hall-Scott J (1994) The maxillary-mandibular planes angle (MMo) bisector: a new reference plane for anteroposterior measurement of the dental bases. Am J Orthod 105:583–591
39.
Schudy FF (1968) The control of vertical overbite in clinical orthodontics. Angle Orthod 38:19–39PubMed
40.
Kim YH (1974) Overbite depth indicator with particular reference to anterior open-bite. Am J Orthod 65:586–611PubMed
41.
Merrifield LL, Cross JJ (1970) Directional forces. Am J Orthod 57:435–464PubMed
42.
Harvold E (1963) Some biologic aspects of orthodontic treatment in the transitional dentition. Am J Orthod 49:1–14
43.
Hassan B, Nijkamp P, Verheij H et al (2013) Precision of identifying cephalometric landmarks with cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Eur J Orthod 35:38–44PubMed
44.
Ludlow JB, Gubler M, Cevidanes L, Mol A (2009) Precision of cephalometric landmark identification: cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional cephalometric views. Am J Orthod 136:312.e1–312.10
45.
Neiva MB, Soares AC, Lisboa Cde O, Vilella Ode V, Motta AT (2015) Evaluation of cephalometric landmark identification on CBCT multiplanar and 3D reconstructions. Angle Orthod 85:11–17PubMed
Metadata
Title
3D cephalometry on reduced FOV CBCT: skeletal class assessment through AF-BF on Frankfurt plane—validity and reliability through comparison with 2D measurements
Authors
Marco Farronato
Cinzia Maspero
Andrea Abate
Cristina Grippaudo
Stephen Thaddeus Connelly
Gianluca Martino Tartaglia
Publication date
01-11-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 11/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06905-7

Other articles of this Issue 11/2020

European Radiology 11/2020 Go to the issue

Head and Neck

The round window sign: a sensitive sign to detect perilymphatic fistulae on delayed postcontrast 3D-FLAIR sequence

Musculoskeletal

The association between patellar tendon stiffness measured with shear-wave elastography and patellar tendinopathy—a case-control study

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Distinguishing intrahepatic mass-forming biliary carcinomas from hepatocellular carcinoma by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging using the Bayesian method: a bi-center study

Breast

Breast-specific gamma imaging or ultrasonography as adjunct imaging diagnostics in women with mammographically dense breasts

Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

Deep learning in interstitial lung disease—how long until daily practice

Musculoskeletal

Efficacy and safety of bone marrow aspiration and biopsy using fluoroscopic guidance and a drill-powered needle: clinical experience from 775 cases