3-Dimensional cone-beam computed tomography superimposition: A review

Reliability of three-dimensional anterior cranial base superimposition methods for assessment of overall hard tissue changes: A systematic review

“…4,21 A review addressing the 3D CBCT superimposition methods was published in 2015. 4 Although it discussed the three main techniques, it focused mainly on their clinical applications, benefits, and limitations. It did not consider the measuring capabilities of any of those methods.…”

“…[1][2][3] Conventional lateral cephalometric radiographs have proven to be an invaluable part of initial and final orthodontic records to quantify and determine craniofacial growth changes and effects of orthodontic treatment. 1,4 However, two-dimensional (2D) cephalometric radiographs suffer from a number of inherent flaws, such as errors generated because of inadequate patient head position, alignment of the imaging device, inherent geometric distortions, and differential magnification created by projection distance and beam divergence. 1,[5][6][7][8][9] During the past decade, craniofacial three-dimensional (3D) digital records have become increasingly popular among orthodontists as the specialty progressed toward a 3D virtual representation of the patient for diagnosis, treatment planning, and surgical simulation.…”

“…The advanced imaging capabilities of conebeam computed tomography (CBCT) are depicted through 3D cephalometric analysis, temporomandibular joint visualization, and 3D evaluation of dental anomalies, to name only a few. 4,10 A single scan provides an overlap-free 3D visualization of different components of the skull, enables volumetric measurements to be made, and allows a detailed assessment of the maxillofacial structures in variable thickness of the axial, coronal, and sagittal slices, providing real measurements with no magnification. 9,11 Recently, similar to 2D cephalometric tracings, CBCT images can be superimposed, allowing a 3D evaluation of growth changes, treatment effects, and stability over a certain time interval through registration points, angles, shapes, and volumes.…”

“…[12][13][14] One of the main challenges of 3D superimposition of serial images is to understand that linear/angular measurements in 2D and 3D images are not directly comparable because of differences in size, shape, and relative spatial location of the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue between the two imaging systems. 4,15 The following three general methods of 3D cephalometric superimposition have been published and used for clinical diagnosis and assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes: (1) voxel based, 3,4,[16][17][18][19] (2) landmark based, 7,20 and (3) surface based. 4,21 A review addressing the 3D CBCT superimposition methods was published in 2015.…”

“…4,15 The following three general methods of 3D cephalometric superimposition have been published and used for clinical diagnosis and assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes: (1) voxel based, 3,4,[16][17][18][19] (2) landmark based, 7,20 and (3) surface based. 4,21 A review addressing the 3D CBCT superimposition methods was published in 2015. 4 Although it discussed the three main techniques, it focused mainly on their clinical applications, benefits, and limitations.…”