Journals / Gülhane Tıp Dergisi / 2011 / Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 1

İki ve üç boyutlu sefalometrik ölçümler arasındaki farklılıkların değerlendirilmesi

Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements

Pages
43–49
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

After the evaluation of the results it was determined that the conventional two dimensional cephalometry and computer aided three dimensional cephalometry were close in depicting angular relations of structures, but they differed in the accuracy of linear measurements, except Nperp-A, Nperp-Pog, Overjet, Overbite, L1-NB, UL-E and LL-E.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this research was to compare the three dimensional (3D) craniofacial measurements with conventional two dimensional cephalometric measurements in patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study was carried out on lateral cephalograms and axial computed tomography (CT) images of 44 patients.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:After the evaluation of the results it was determined that the conventional two dimensional cephalometry and computer aided three dimensional cephalometry were close in depicting angular relations of structures, but they differed in the accuracy of linear measurements, except Nperp-A, Nperp-Pog, Overjet, Overbite, L1-NB, UL-E and LL-E.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this research was to compare the three dimensional (3D) craniofacial measurements with conventional two dimensional cephalometric measurements in patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion. The study was carried out on lateral cephalograms and axial computed tomography (CT) images of 44 patients. The 3D images were obtained and measured with Mimics 12.01 image processing software. Anatomic landmarks were first designated on the 3D surface model, and their positions were verified on sagittal, coronal, and axial planes. 14 angular and 18 linear measurements were performed on 3D images, and conventional cephalograms. After the evaluation of the results it was determined that the conventional two dimensional cephalometry and computer aided three dimensional cephalometry were close in depicting angular relations of structures, but they differed in the accuracy of linear measurements, except Nperp-A, Nperp-Pog, Overjet, Overbite, L1-NB, UL-E and LL-E.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, iskeletsel Sınıf III maloklüzyonu olan hastalarda üç boyutlu (3B) kraniyofasiyal ölçümleri, geleneksel iki boyutlu sefalometrik ölçümlerle karşılaştırmaktır. Çalışma 44 hastanın lateral sefalogramları ve aksiyel bilgisayarlı tomografi (BT) görüntüleri üzerinde yürütülmüştür. 3B görüntülerin oluşturulması ve ölçülmesi, Mimics 12.01 görüntü işleme yazılımı ile yapılmıştır. Anatomik yapılar önce 3B yüzey modeli üzerinde belirlenmiş ve pozisyonları sagital, koronal, ve aksiyal düzlemlerde doğrulanmıştır. 3B görüntüler ve geleneksel sefalometriler üzerinde 14 açısal ve 18 doğrusal ölçüm yapılmıştır. Sonuçların değerlendirilmesinde, yapıların açısal ilişkilerini tanımlamada geleneksel iki boyutlu sefalometri ve bilgisayar destekli üç boyutlu sefalometrinin birbirine yakın olduğu, ancak Nperp-A, Nperp-Pog, Overjet, Overbite, L1-NB, UL-E ve LL-E haricindeki doğrusal ölçümlerin farklılık gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIRIM, E., ÖLMEZ, H., GÖRGÜLÜ, S., GÖKÇE, S., SAĞDIÇ, D., KARAÇAY, Ş. (2011). İki ve üç boyutlu sefalometrik ölçümler arasındaki farklılıkların değerlendirilmesi. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 1, 43–49. https://ajindex.com/articles/225428

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Quintero JC, Trosien A, Hatcher D, Kapila S. Craniofacial imaging in orthodontics: historical perspective, current status, and future developments. Angle Orthod 1999; 69: 491-506
  2. Hajeer MY, Millett DT, Ayoub AF, Siebert JP. Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: part I. J Orthod 2004; 31: 62-70
  3. Bergersen EO. The directions of facial growth from infancy to adulthood. Angle Orthod 1966; 36: 18-43
  4. Mah J, Hatcher D. Three-dimensional craniofacial imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126: 308-309
  5. Adams GL, Gansky SA, Miller AJ, Harrell WE Jr, Hatcher DC. Comparison between traditional 2-dimensional cephalometry and a 3-dimensional approach on human dry skulls. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126: 397-409
  6. Han UK, Vig KW, Weintraub JA, Vig PS, Kowalski CJ. Consistency of orthodontic treatment decisions relative to diagnostic records. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991; 100: 212-219
  7. Kitaura H, Yonetsu K, Kitamori H, Kobayashi K, Nakamura T. Standardization of 3-D CT measurements for length and angles by matrix transformation in the 3-D coordinate system. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2000; 37: 349-356
  8. Miller PA, Savara BS, Singh IJ. Analysis of errors in cephalometric measurement of three-dimensional distances on the maxilla. Angle Orthod 1966; 36: 169-175
  9. Pae EK. Cephalometry needs innovation, not renovation. Angle Orthod 1997; 67: 395-396
  10. Enciso R, Memon A, Fidaleo DA, Neumann U, Mah J. The virtual craniofacial patient: 3D jaw modeling and animation. Stud Health Technol Inform 2003; 94: 65-71
  11. Mavili ME, Canter HI, Saglam-Aydinatay B, Kamaci S, Kocadereli I. Use of three-dimensional medical modeling methods for precise planning of orthognathic surgery. J Craniofac Surg 2007; 18: 740-747
  12. Metzger MC, Hohlweg-Majert B, Schwarz U, Teschner M, Hammer B, Schmelzeisen R. Manufacturing splints for orthognathic surgery using a three-dimensional printer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105: e1-7
  13. Ortakoglu K, Karacay S, Sencimen M, Akin E, Ozyigit AH, Bengi O. Distraction osteogenesis in a severe mandibular deficiency. Head Face Med 2007; 20: 3-7
  14. Sinn DP, Cillo JE Jr, Miles BA. Stereolithography for craniofacial surgery. J Craniofac Surg 2006; 17: 869-875
  15. Park SH, Yu HS, Kim KD, Lee KJ, Baik HS. A proposal for a new analysis of craniofacial morphology by 3-dimensional computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129: e23-34
  16. Lopes PM, Moreira CR, Perrella