Accuracy of reconstructed images from cone-beam computed tomography scans

Lamichane, Manish; Anderson, Nina K.; Rigali, Paul H.; Seldin, Edward B.; Will, Leslie A.

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.01.019

Cited by 45 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…23 It has also been observed that the RaySum projection is more reproducible than the MIP and that either projection could replace LCR, thus making LCRs unnecessary when a CBCT has previously been undertaken on a patient. 15,[21][22][23] However, for frontal projections, other authors found statistically significant differences, as they saw that the positioning of the patient's head 24 influenced the measurement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Conebeam computed tomography (CBCT) 1,2 was then developed to reduce the radiation dosage, achieve greater precision on the three spatial planes, and reduce the costs associated with CT. 3 The accuracy [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and reproducibility 11,14 of cephalometric landmarks have been widely studied for CT 4,17,18 and CBCT 5,10,12,13,19 by evaluating the location of those landmarks 20 or by comparing the linear and angular measurements 15,[21][22][23] taken on lateral cephalometric radiographs (LCR) with two-dimensional (2D) projections (orthogonal, in perspective, maximum-intensity projection [MIP], projection similar to x-ray [RaySum]), obtained from slices of a CBCT scan. The results for landmark location were similar for both methods, greater reproducibility being found in the projections from CBCT than from LCR, although there were no clinically significant results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cephalometric measurements from 3D reconstructed images compared with conventional 2D images

Zamora

Llamas

Cibrián

et al. 2011

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess whether the values of different measurements taken on three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) are comparable with those taken on two-dimensional (2D) images from conventional lateral cephalometric radiographs (LCRs) and to examine if there are differences between the different types of CBCT software when taking those measurements. Material and Methods: Eight patients were selected who had both an LRC and a CBCT. The 3D reconstructions of each patient in the CBCT were evaluated using two different software packages, NemoCeph 3D and InVivo5. An observer took 10 angular and 3 linear measurements on each of the three types of record on two different occasions. Results: Intraobserver reliability was high except for the mandibular plane and facial cone (from the LCR), the Na-Ans distance (using NemoCeph 3D), and facial cone and the Ans-Me distance (using InVivo5). No statistically significant differences were found for the angular and linear measurements between the LCRs and the CBCTs for any measurement, and the correlation levels were high for all measurements. Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were found between the angular and linear measurements taken with the LCR and those taken with the CBCT. Neither were there any statistically significant differences between the angular or linear measurements using the two CBCT software packages. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:856-864.)

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cephalometric measurements from 3D reconstructed images compared with conventional 2D images

Zamora

Llamas

Cibrián

et al. 2011

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…22 Reliable and accurate evaluation is difficult because of this inherent geometric magnification, distortion, and superimposition of craniofacial structures. [23][24][25][26][27] The use of cephalometry as an adjunct to clinical examination as a basis for predicting craniofacial growth is thus questionable. 28,29 Imaging is increasingly favored for perceiving the size and form of craniofacial structures in orthodontics and has the advantage of replicating anatomical detail accurately in three dimensions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of mandibular volume using cone-beam computed tomography and correlation with cephalometric values

Katayama

Yamaguchi

Sugiura

et al. 2013

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate the association between maxillofacial morphology and mandibular bone volume in patients with skeletal malocclusion. Materials and Methods: Subjects were 118 adult Japanese (58 males and 60 females). Skeletal malocclusion was classified, based on cephalometric analysis, into skeletal Classes I (21u # ANB , 4u), II (ANB $ 4u), and III (ANB , 21u). Using cone-beam computed tomography and threedimensional image analysis software, the dental crowns and mandible were separated, with only the mandible extracted. This was then reconstructed as a three-dimensional model, from which the mandibular volume was measured. Results: No significant difference in mandibular volume was noted among skeletal Classes I, II, and III, nor was there any significant correlation between mandibular volume and the ANB, SNB, or mandibular plane angles. There was occasional and limited correlation between mandible volume and gonial angle and certain cephalometric distance parameters. Conclusion: We conclude that proper understanding of the three-dimensional maxillofacial morphology requires not only cephalometric radiographic tracings but also high-resolution analysis of the mandibular area, width, and volume. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:337-342.)

show abstract

“…Various studies have been performed to evaluate normal landmarks on CBCT-derived cephalograms (11,12). In addition, the precision and accuracy of measurements made via CBCT images have been studied by several investigators (11,(13)(14)(15). It has been reported that measurements on CBCT-derived cephalograms did not clinically differ from those on conventional cephalograms in vivo or in vitro (11,13).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement of Dental Students in the Detection of Normal Landmarks When Comparing Digital Lateral Cephalograms and Three-Dimensional Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Proper defining of normal landmarks in lateral cephalograms is important for establishing proper orthodontic treatment plan. Objectives: To evaluate the agreement of dental students to identify normal landmarks (NLs) in digital lateral cephalograms and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Patients and Methods: In this study, lateral cephalograms and CBCT images of 11 orthodontic patients were selected. Three fourthyear dental students were asked to identify 19 NLs after calibrating digital lateral cephalograms and 3D CBCT images. Then, the distances of each landmark from the superior and anterior edges of the images were measured for each observer. Results: The observers' errors fell within a range of -1.03 to 2.74 in two-dimensional cephalometry and a range of -0.88 to 2.31 in 3D CBCT, showing a 95% limit of agreement. According to the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) comparison made by our student observers, only 5% of interobserver assessment in CBCT and 20% in lateral cephalometry showed poor reliability. These same observers showed more agreement when identifying NLs on soft tissue as compared to hard tissue structures and also in detecting NLs located in the midsagittal region rather than on lateral sides in both modalities. Their differences in agreement in detecting midsagittal NLs rather than on lateral sides were statistically significant (P = 0.0001). Conclusions:The training of cephalometric tracing in orthodontic course based on 3D skull models and imaginary methods was deemed successful in increasing the ability of dental students to determine the precise location of NLs, even on CBCT images.

show abstract

Accuracy of reconstructed images from cone-beam computed tomography scans

Cited by 45 publications

References 15 publications

Cephalometric measurements from 3D reconstructed images compared with conventional 2D images

Cephalometric measurements from 3D reconstructed images compared with conventional 2D images

Evaluation of mandibular volume using cone-beam computed tomography and correlation with cephalometric values

Agreement of Dental Students in the Detection of Normal Landmarks When Comparing Digital Lateral Cephalograms and Three-Dimensional Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About