Comparison of the Reliability of Anatomic Landmarks based on PA Cephalometric Radiographs and 3D CT Scans in Patients with Facial Asymmetry.
BACKGROUND
Conventional cephalometry is an inexpensive and well-established method for evaluating patients with dentofacial deformities. However, patients with major deformities and in particular asymmetric cases are difficult to evaluate by conventional cephalometry. Reliable and accurate evaluation in the orbital and midfacial region in craniofacial syndrome patients is difficult due to inherent geometric magnification, distortion and the superpositioning of the craniofacial structures on cephalograms. Both two- and three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) have been proposed to alleviate some of these difficulties.


OBJECTIVE
The aim of our study is to compare the reliability of anatomic cephalometric points obtained from the two modalities: Conventional posteroanterior cephalograms and 3D CT of patients with facial asymmetry, by comparison of intra- and interobserver variation of points recorded from frontal X-ray to those recorded from 3D CT.


METHODS
The sample included nine patients (5 males and 4 females) with an age range of 14 to 21 years and a mean age of 17.11 years, whose treatment plan called for correction of facial asymmetry. All CT scans were measured twice by two investigators with 2 weeks separation for determination of intraobserver and interobserver variability. Similarly, all measurement points on the frontal cephalograms were traced twice with 2 weeks separation. The tracings were superimposed and the average distance between replicate points readings were used as a measure of intra- and interobserver reliability. Intra-and interobserver variations are calculated for each method and the data were imported directly into the statistical program, SPSS 10.0.1 for windows.


RESULTS
Intraobserver variations of points defined on 3D CT were small compared with frontal cephalograms. The intraobserver variations ranged from 0 (A1, B1) to 0.6 mm with the variations less than 0.5 mm for most of the points. Interobserver variations of points between first and second tracings defined on PA Ceph and 3D CT were less than 1.5 mm for all the points. A direct comparison of frontal cephalometry and 3D CT using intraobserver variation for the first observer showed that 3D CT was more reliable than frontal cephalometry for 11 points. Direct comparison of frontal cephalometry and 3D CT for the second observer showed a similar tendency with 14 points significantly more reliable for 3D CT. Comparison of frontal cephalometry and 3D CT using interobserver variation for the tracings showed that 3D CT was more reliable than frontal cephalometry.


CONCLUSIONS
The study has shown that 3D CT is consistently more accurate and reliable than conventional frontal cephalometry. Unfortunately, the cost of a computerized tomography examination is considerable; this means that, at this stage, its use by surgeons and orthodontists is a last resort.
Reader, Department of Orthodontics, Rajasthan Dental College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Kamal
K
Bajaj
Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Government Dental College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Pooja
P
Rathee
Professor and Head, Department of Orthodontics, Government Dental College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Pradeep
P
Jain
Clinical Assistant, Department of Orthodontics, Mahatma Gandhi Dental College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Vasim Raja
VR
Panwar
3D CT scan.; Frontal cephalometry; Lateral cephalometry
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987 Jan;91(1):57-61
3467581
Angle Orthod. 1991 Spring;61(1):43-8
2012321
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996 Oct;17 (9):1758-60
8896633
Am J Orthod. 1983 Mar;83(3):221-34
6572474
Arch Oral Biol. 1966 Feb;11(2):209-17
5226741
Am J Orthod. 1985 Jun;87(6):453-72
3859222
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 May;123(5):512-20
12750669
Aust Orthod J. 2003 Nov;19(2):67-75
14703331
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992 Mar;29(2):112-7
1571344
Br J Orthod. 1984 Jan;11(1):44-8
6584177
Am J Orthod. 1966 Sep;52(9):637-51
5222437
Angle Orthod. 1989 Fall;59(3):211-5
2774297
Am J Orthod. 1979 Jun;75(6):599-617
287374
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992 Nov;50(11):1164-72
1403271
Semin Orthod. 1998 Sep;4(3):189-98
9807155
Angle Orthod. 1994;64(2):89-98
8010527
Odontol Tidskr. 1967 Apr 20;75(2):99-129
5229647
Angle Orthod. 1974 Jan;44(1):56-61
4520951
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1990 Jul;82(3):283-94
2375381
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997 Mar;34(2):111-6
9138504
Am J Orthod. 1971 Aug;60(2):111-27
5283996