Quantitation of maxillary remodeling. 2. Masking of remodeling effects when an "anatomical" method of superimposition is used in the absence of metallic implants.
We report the results of a study aimed at quantifying the differences in the perceived pattern of maxillary remodeling that are observed when different methods are used to superimpose maxillary images in roentgenographic cephalometrics. In a previous article, we reported cumulative changes in the positions of anterior nasal spine (ANS), posterior nasal spine (PNS), and Point A for a sample of 31 subjects with maxillary metallic implants. Measurements had been made on lateral cephalograms taken at annual intervals relative to superimposition on the implants. In the present article, we quantify the differences in the perceived displacement of the same landmarks in the same sample when a standard "anatomical best bit" rule was used in lieu of superimposition on the implants. The anatomical best fit superimposition as herein defined was found in this sample to lose important information on the downward remodeling of the superior surface of the maxilla that had been detected when the implant superimposition was used. In fact, we observed a small artifactual upward displacement of the ANS-PNS line. In the anteroposterior direction, the tendency toward backward displacement of skeletal landmarks through time that had been detected with the implant superimposition was replaced by a small forward displacement of ANS and Point A together with reduced backward displacement of PNS. To the extent that the implant superimposition is to be considered the true and correct one, the anatomical best fit superimposition appears to understate the true downward remodeling of the palate by an average of about 0.3 and 0.4 mm per year, although this value differs at different ages and timepoints. The anatomical best fit superimposition also misses entirely the small mean tendency toward backward remodeling that was observed when the implant superimposition was used. In situations in which there are no implants, clinicians and research workers must necessarily continue to use anatomically based superimpositions with definitions more or less similar to that of the anatomical best fit superimposition used here. When they do so, some systematic errors will be incurred. For grouped data, we believe that the best currently available estimates of the mean errors involved in using the anatomical best fit superimposition to approximate an implant superimposition are the "bias" values included in Table IIC. The secondary implications of these differences to the perceived displacements of the maxillary teeth will be considered in our next article.
Baumrind
S
S
Korn
E L
EL
Ben-Bassat
Y
Y
West
E E
EE
D000293:Adolescent; D002508:Cephalometry / Q000379:methods*; D002648:Child; D005260:Female; D005544:Forecasting; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008437:Maxilla / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000254:growth & development*; D009295:Nasal Bone / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D010159:Palate / Q000033:anatomy & histology; D019736:Prostheses and Implants