The reliability of using postero-anterior cephalometry and cone-beam CT to determine transverse dimensions in clinical practice.

Q Medicine
Australian Orthodontic Journal Pub Date : 2014-11-01
Benjamin Tai, Mithran Suresh Goonewardene, Kevin Murray, Bernard Koong, Syed Mohammed Shamsul Islam
{"title":"The reliability of using postero-anterior cephalometry and cone-beam CT to determine transverse dimensions in clinical practice.","authors":"Benjamin Tai,&nbsp;Mithran Suresh Goonewardene,&nbsp;Kevin Murray,&nbsp;Bernard Koong,&nbsp;Syed Mohammed Shamsul Islam","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study primarily aimed to assess the accuracy of classically-advocated reference points for the measurement of transverse jaw-base and dental relationships using conventional Postero-Anterior Cephalometry (PAC) and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>PAC and CBCT images were collected from 31 randomly selected orthodontic patients (12 males, 19 females), all of whom had a full permanent dentition. The transverse widths of the maxilla, mandible and the dentition were measured using reference points on both image modalities. Confidence intervals, intra-class coefficients and Bland Altman plots were used to assess the measurement differences derived from the two acquirement methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Measurements on PAC and CBCT images demonstrated statistically significant differences in the majority of the assessed variables. The interjugal (J-J) width was one of only two variables which did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference on image comparison. The mean differences of the antegonial width (Ag-Ag) (-4.44mm, 95% CI -5.38 to -3.51) represented the greatest difference between the imaging techniques. The application of these points to a transverse skeletal analysis (J-J/Ag-Ag ratio) revealed that five of the 31 subjects (16%) recorded 'false positive' readings according to the derived data.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It is recommended that clinicians are cautious when interpreting and making decisions related to transverse dimensions derived from a PAC. The PAC has a higher tendency to falsely identify individuals who require maxillary expansion procedures based on conventional clinical criteria. The errors primarily associated with identifying structures which represent the width of the mandible are significant in both PAC and CBCT techniques and require further investigation. It is postulated that the confounding effects of overlying soft tissues have a sianificant impact on a clinician's ability to identify relevant landmarks.</p>","PeriodicalId":55417,"journal":{"name":"Australian Orthodontic Journal","volume":"30 2","pages":"132-42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Orthodontic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: This study primarily aimed to assess the accuracy of classically-advocated reference points for the measurement of transverse jaw-base and dental relationships using conventional Postero-Anterior Cephalometry (PAC) and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT).

Method: PAC and CBCT images were collected from 31 randomly selected orthodontic patients (12 males, 19 females), all of whom had a full permanent dentition. The transverse widths of the maxilla, mandible and the dentition were measured using reference points on both image modalities. Confidence intervals, intra-class coefficients and Bland Altman plots were used to assess the measurement differences derived from the two acquirement methods.

Results: Measurements on PAC and CBCT images demonstrated statistically significant differences in the majority of the assessed variables. The interjugal (J-J) width was one of only two variables which did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference on image comparison. The mean differences of the antegonial width (Ag-Ag) (-4.44mm, 95% CI -5.38 to -3.51) represented the greatest difference between the imaging techniques. The application of these points to a transverse skeletal analysis (J-J/Ag-Ag ratio) revealed that five of the 31 subjects (16%) recorded 'false positive' readings according to the derived data.

Conclusion: It is recommended that clinicians are cautious when interpreting and making decisions related to transverse dimensions derived from a PAC. The PAC has a higher tendency to falsely identify individuals who require maxillary expansion procedures based on conventional clinical criteria. The errors primarily associated with identifying structures which represent the width of the mandible are significant in both PAC and CBCT techniques and require further investigation. It is postulated that the confounding effects of overlying soft tissues have a sianificant impact on a clinician's ability to identify relevant landmarks.

临床应用头后前位测量和锥束CT测定横断面尺寸的可靠性。
目的:本研究的主要目的是评估传统的头后前位测量(PAC)和锥束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)测量横颌基和牙齿关系的经典推荐参考点的准确性。方法:随机选取31例正畸患者(男12例,女19例)的PAC和CBCT图像,均为全恒牙列。使用两种图像模式的参考点测量上颌骨、下颌骨和牙列的横向宽度。使用置信区间、类内系数和Bland Altman图来评估两种获取方法产生的测量差异。结果:对PAC和CBCT图像的测量显示,在大多数评估变量上存在统计学上的显著差异。间距(J-J)宽度是仅有的两个变量之一,在图像比较中没有表现出统计学上的显著差异。两种成像技术之间最大的差异是抗原宽度(Ag-Ag)的平均差异(-4.44mm, 95% CI -5.38 ~ -3.51)。将这些点应用于横向骨骼分析(J-J/Ag-Ag比率)显示,根据导出的数据,31名受试者中有5名(16%)记录了“假阳性”读数。结论:建议临床医生在解释和决定与PAC相关的横向尺寸时要谨慎。PAC有更高的倾向错误地识别基于传统临床标准需要上颌扩张手术的个体。主要与识别代表下颌骨宽度的结构相关的错误在PAC和CBCT技术中都很重要,需要进一步研究。据推测,复盖软组织的混杂效应对临床医生识别相关标志的能力有重大影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australian Orthodontic Journal
Australian Orthodontic Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.48
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书