3D-CT evaluation of facial asymmetry in patients with maxillofacial deformities

Maeda, Masahito; Katsumata, Akitoshi; Ariji, Yoshiko; Muramatsu, Akinori; Yoshida, Kenji; Goto, Shigemi; Kurita, K.; Ariji, Eiichiro

doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.10.057

Cited by 144 publications

(114 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…20 Previous 2D studies on facial asymmetry have reported that the mandible appears to be the leading factor in facial asymmetry. 21,22 Because quantitative measurement is a key element in the diagnosis of asymmetry, 3D structures cannot be properly analyzed with 2D radiographs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cone-beam computed tomography assessment of mandibular asymmetry in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine whether there is any difference between the cleft and non-cleft sides of the mandible in unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) patients, or the right and left sides in control patients; and to determine if there is any difference between the mandibular asymmetry of UCLP patients and that of control patients. Methods: We examined cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of 15 patients with UCLP and 15 age-and gender-matched control patients. We evaluated 8 linear, 3 surface, and 3 volumetric measurements and compared the cleft/non-cleft sides of UCLP patients and the right/left sides of controls. Results: There were no statistically significant gender differences in any linear, surface, or volumetric measurement. The single significant side-to-side difference in UCLP patients was a longer coronoid unit on the cleft side than on the non-cleft side (p = 0.046). Body volume was significantly lower in the UCLP group than in the control group (p = 0.008). Conclusions: In general, UCLP patients have symmetrical mandibles, although the coronoid unit length is significantly longer on the cleft side than on the non-cleft side. UCLP patients and controls differed only in body volume.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cone-beam computed tomography assessment of mandibular asymmetry in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[2][3][4][5] In the past decade, the introduction of CBCT in dental radiology and its wide adoption for many clinical applications in dentistry has revived interest in using 3D cephalometric analysis for routine orthodontic cases. 6 Compared with the multislice computerized tomography, CBCT is less expensive, is more accessible, and offers a lower dose of radiation. 7,8 Furthermore, CBCT measurements are not significantly influenced by variation in skull orientation or head position during image acquisition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Naji

Alsufyani

Lagravère

2014

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To identify anatomic structures in three dimensions and examine their reliability to be used as landmarks in a three-dimensional coordinate cephalometric analysis, using cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Thirty CBCT images were randomly selected for landmark location. Forty-two anatomic landmarks, which are not included in the traditional cephalometric landmarks, were chosen based on radiographic characteristics that make them pragmatic to mark in the CBCT image slices. The principal investigator marked the full set of landmarks on the software by navigating in the X, Y, and Z axes for every image three times, with each measurement trial being at least 1 week apart. One other investigator also located the landmarks once for each image for reliability purposes. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to analyze the mean differences in landmark location in all axes. Results: Intra-and interexaminer reliability for x, y, and z coordinates for all landmarks had ICC greater than 0.95 with confidence interval of 0.88-0.99. Mean measurement differences found were ,1.4 mm for all landmarks in all three coordinates. Mean measurement error differences obtained in the principal investigator's trials were primarily ,0.5 mm. Conclusion:The most reliable and reproducible landmarks tested for use in CBCT are mental foramina, infraorbital foramina, inferior hamulus, dens axis, foramina transversarium of atlas, medial and lateral condyles of the mandible, superior clinoid processes, and mid-clinoid. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:762-772.)

show abstract

“…Computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) allow us to handle images three-dimensionally, and are now widely used for planning and evaluating various dental treatments, [1][2][3][4] such as orthognathic surgery [5][6][7][8] and orthodontic treatment. [9][10][11][12] Some procedures have been proposed for three-dimensional (3D) measurements and are also applied to cephalometric analysis, which has the potential to replace traditional two-dimensional (2D) cephalometric evaluation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility of landmark identification in the jaw and teeth on 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images

Fuyamada

Nawa

Shibata

et al. 2011

The Angle Orthodontist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the reproducibility of landmark identification on three-dimensional (3D) conebeam computed tomography (CBCT) images between procedures based on traditional cephalometric definitions (procedure 1) and those tentatively proposed for 3D images (procedure 2). Materials and Methods: A phantom with embedded dried human skull was scanned using CBCT. The acquired volume data were transferred to a personal computer, and 3D images were reconstructed. Eighteen dentists plotted nine landmarks related to the jaws and teeth four times: menton (Me), pogonion (Po), upper-1 (U1), lower-1 (L1), left upper-6 (U6), left lower-6 (L6), gonion (Go), condyle (Cd), and coronoid process (Cp). The plotting reliabilities of the two procedures were compared by calculating standard deviations (SDs) in three components (x, y, and z) of coordinates and volumes of 95% confidence ellipsoid. Results: All 27 SDs for procedure 2 were less than 1 mm, and only five of them exceeded 0.5 mm. The variations were significantly different between the two procedures, and the SDs of procedure 2 were smaller than those of procedure 1 in 21 components of coordinates. The ellipsoid volumes were also smaller for procedure 2 than procedure 1, although a significant difference was not found. Conclusions: Definitions determined strictly on each three sectional images, such as for procedure 2, were required for sufficient reliability in identifying the landmark related to the jaws and teeth. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:843-849.)

show abstract

3D-CT evaluation of facial asymmetry in patients with maxillofacial deformities

Cited by 144 publications

References 20 publications

Cone-beam computed tomography assessment of mandibular asymmetry in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients

Cone-beam computed tomography assessment of mandibular asymmetry in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients

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

Reproducibility of landmark identification in the jaw and teeth on 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About