SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Cumhuriyet Dental Journal / 2015 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 4

Servikal vertebra anomalilerinin lateral sefalogram ve konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi ile değerlendirilmesi

The assessment of cervical vertebral anomalies on lateral cephalograms and cone-beam computed tomographs

Alper Enver SİNANOĞLU
Burcu Ayşe ALTAN
Hüsniye DEMİRTÜRK KOCASARAÇ
Pages
327–334
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

Our findings suggest that the evaluation of two-dimensional radiographs for the diagnosis of cervical vertebral anomalies was not a reliable method

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aims of this study were (1) to determine the occurrence of cervical vertebral anomaly in the selected population, (2) to evaluate the reliability of the findings obtained from lateral cephalograms.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, the lateral cephalogram findings were compared with those obtained from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).Subjects and Methods: A sample of 123 subjects who had both lateral cephalogram and CBCT were comprised from the archive.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Our findings suggest that the evaluation of two-dimensional radiographs for the diagnosis of cervical vertebral anomalies was not a reliable method
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aims of this study were (1) to determine the occurrence of cervical vertebral anomaly in the selected population, (2) to evaluate the reliability of the findings obtained from lateral cephalograms. For this purpose, the lateral cephalogram findings were compared with those obtained from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).Subjects and Methods: A sample of 123 subjects who had both lateral cephalogram and CBCT were comprised from the archive. Only the subjects with images presenting the first four cervical vertebrae were included; thus 25 subjects (14 female, 11 male) formed the study group. Normal appearance was determined when the first four vertebrae could be traced as separate entities, with all anatomical components present. Characteristics of the cervical column were classified according to Sandham as posterior arch deficiencies (PAD) and fusions.Results: The lateral cephalogram findings of the 25 subjects revealed an occurrence of 16% for fusion and an occurrence of 20% for PAD. However, none of these findings were confirmed by the evaluation of CBCT images.Conclusions: The occurrence of cervical vertebral anomalies was zero in the evaluated orthodontic population. Our findings suggest that the evaluation of two-dimensional radiographs for the diagnosis of cervical vertebral anomalies was not a reliable method

Özet

Çalışmanın amaçları; (1) seçilen popülasyonda servikal vertebra anomalisi görülme sıklığını belirlemek; (2) lateral sefalogram üzerinde yapılan servikal vertebral anomali teşhisinin geçerliliğini değerlendirmektir. Bu amaçla, lateral sefalogramlarla elde edilen bulgular, altın standart kabul edilen konik ışınlı bilgisayar tomografi (KIBT) bulgularıyla karşılaştırılmıştır.Bireyler ve Yöntem: Retrospektif arşiv taramasında KIBT kaydı bulunan ve lateral sefalogramı olan 123 kişi tespit edildi; bunlardan tüm kayıtlarda ilk dört vertebrası tamamen görülen 25 birey (14 kız, 11 erkek) çalışmaya dahil edildi. Tüm anatomik komponentleri bulunan ilk dört servikal vertebra ayrı üniteler halinde çizilebildiğinde morfolojik olarak 'normal' kabul edildi. Servikal vertebraların karakteristikleri Sandham'a göre sınıflandırıldı ve posterior ark defektleri (PAD) ve füzyon anomalileri açısından elde edilen görüntüler değerlendirildi.Bulgular: Lateral sefalogram ve KIBT kayıtlarında, belirlenen vertabraların görüntülenebildiği 25 hastanın lateral sefalogram değerlendirmesinde %16'sında füzyon, %20'sinde PAD olduğu düşünüldü. Ancak, lateral sefalogramlarda tespit edilen bulguların hiç birisi KIBT değerlendirmesi sonucu doğrulanmadı.Sonuçlar: Çalışmada değerlendirilen ortodontik popülasyonda servikal vertebral anomali görülme sıklığı sıfırdır. Servikal vertebral anomalilerin teşhisi için iki boyutlu radyogramlar üzerinde yapılan değerlendirmeler güvenilir değildir

🔖

Cite This Article

SİNANOĞLU, A. E., ALTAN, B. A., KOCASARAÇ, H. D. (2022). Servikal vertebra anomalilerinin lateral sefalogram ve konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi ile değerlendirilmesi. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 4, 327–334. https://ajindex.com/articles/477087

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Frost M, Huffer WE, Sze CI, Badesch D, Cajade-Law AG, Kleinschmidt- DeMasters BK. Cervical spine abnormalities in Down Syndrome. Clin Neuropathol 1999;18:250-259.
  2. Sonnesen L, Kjaer I. Cervical column morphology in patients with skeletal open bite. Orthod Craniofac Res 2008;11:17-23.
  3. Sonnesen L, Kjaer I. Cervical vertebral body fusions in patients with skeletal deep bite. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:464-470.
  4. Sonnesen L, Kjaer I. Anomalies of the cervical vertebrae in patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion and horizontal maxillary overjet. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:188.e15-20. Sonnesen L, Kjaer I. Cervical column morphology in patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion and mandibular overjet. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:427.e7-12. Di Vece L, Faleri G, Picciotti M, Guido L, Giorgetti R. Does a transverse maxillary deficit affect the cervical vertebrae? A pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137(4):515-519.
  5. Sonnesen L, Pedersen CE, Kjaer I. Cervical column morphology related to head posture, cranial base angle, and condylar malformation. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:398-403.
  6. Patcas R, Tausch D, Pandis N, Manestar M, Ullrich O, Karlo CA, Peltomäki T, Kellenberger CJ. Illusions of fusions: assessing cervical vertebral fusion on lateral cephalograms, multidetector computed tomographs, and cone- beam computed tomographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143(2):213-220.
  7. Klimo P Jr, Rao G, Brockmeyer D. Congenital anomalies of the cervical spine. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2007;18(3):463-478. Mcrae DL. The significance of abnormalities the cervical spine. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1960;84:3-25.
  8. Bebnowski D, Hänggi MP, Markic G, Roos M, Peltomäki T. Cervical vertebrae anomalies in subjects with Class II malocclusion assessed by lateral cephalogram and cone beam computed tomography. Eur J Orthod 2012;34(2):226-231.
  9. McAfee PC, Bohlman HH, Han JS, Salvagno RT. Comparison of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography in the diagnosis of upper cervical spinal cord compression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1986;11:295-304.
  10. Guille JT, Sherk HH. Congenital osseous anomalies of the upper and lower cervical spine in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84-A:277-288.
  11. Massengill AD, Huynh SL, Harris JH Jr. C2-3 facet joint "pseudo-fusion": anatomic basis of a normal variant. Skeletal Radiol 1997;26(1):27-30.
  12. Koletsis DD, Halazonetis DJ. Cervical vertebrae anomalies in orthodontic patients: a growth-based superimpositional approa