SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Current Research in Dental Sciences / 2014 / Cilt: 24 Sayı: 2

COMPARISON OF LATERAL CEPHALOMETRIC ANALYSES MADE THREE DIMENSIONALLY AND TWO DIMENSIONALLY OBTAINED FROM CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

KONİK IŞINLI BİLGİSAYARLI TOMOGRAFİ KULLANILARAK ELDE EDİLEN İKİ VE ÜÇ BOYUTLU LATERAL SEFALOMETRİK ANALİZLERİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Süleyman BÜYÜK
Koray HALICIOĞLU
Mevlüt ÇELİKOĞLU
Ahmet ŞEKERCİ
Tuba ÜNAL
Doğan KILKIŞ
Pages
213–218
Publication Date
2015-02-11
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)

A total of 19 parameters including 8 skeletal, 8 dental, and 3 soft tissue variables (14 angular and 5 linear) were measured to comparison of determined by each method were compared with a paired analyses

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare lateral cephalometric analyses made three dimensionally (3D) and two dimensionally (2D) obtained from Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and method: The material of this study included that lateral cephalometric images of 25 patients (12 males and 13 females; mean age: 25.22±4.92 years; age range: 18-35 years) were traced by 3D and 2D methods.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A total of 19 parameters including 8 skeletal, 8 dental, and 3 soft tissue variables (14 angular and 5 linear) were measured to comparison of determined by each method were compared with a paired analyses
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi · sefalometri · lateral sefalometrik analiz

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare lateral cephalometric analyses made three dimensionally (3D) and two dimensionally (2D) obtained from Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Material and method: The material of this study included that lateral cephalometric images of 25 patients (12 males and 13 females; mean age: 25.22±4.92 years; age range: 18-35 years) were traced by 3D and 2D methods. All CBCT images were obtained in supine position by using CBCT (NewTom 5G, QR Verona, Italy). DICOM files obtained from the CBCT scans were reconstructed by SimPlant (SimPlant Pro 2011, Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) software. All measurements were made using this software. A total of 19 parameters including 8 skeletal, 8 dental, and 3 soft tissue variables (14 angular and 5 linear) were measured to comparison of determined by each method were compared with a paired analyses

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) kullanılarak elde edilen iki (2D) ve üç boyutlu (3D) lateral sefalometrik analizlerin karşılaştırılmasıdır.Gereç ve yöntem: 25 hastanın (12 erkek ve 13 bayan; ortalama yaş: 25,22 ± 4,92 yıl; yaş dağılımı: 18-35 yıl) 2D ve 3D olarak çizilen lateral sefalometrik görüntüleri bu çalışmanın materyalini oluşturmaktadır. Tüm KIBT görüntüleri KIBT (NewTom 5G, QR Verona, Italy) kullanılarak supin pozisyonunda alınmıştır. DICOM dosyaları SimPlant yazılımı (SimPlant Pro 2011, Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) kullanılarak elde edildi ve tüm ölçümler bu program kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Sefalometrik analizlerin karşılaştırılabilmesi için 8 iskeletsel, 8 dişsel ve 3 yumuşak dokuyu içeren toplam 19 parametre (14 açısal ve 5 boyutsal) ölçülmüştür. Her iki yöntemle belirlenen ölçümler eşleştirilmiş t-testi kullanılarak karşılaştırılmıştır. Ayrıca, Pearson korelasyon katsayıları hesaplanmıştır.Bulgular: 2D ve 3D olarak çizilen lateral sefalometrik filmlerin tekrarlanabilirliği kabul edilebilir sınırlar içinde bulunmuştur. Eşleştirilmiş t testi sonucunda; SN-GoGn (°) (p = 0,011), MP-PP (°) (p = 0,006), Y (°) (p = 0,009) ve IMPA (°) (p = 0,002) açılarında, N-Me (mm) (p = 0,043) ve U1-NA (mm) (p = 0,000) ölçümleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık olduğu görülmüştür. Pearson korelasyon katsayısı U1-NA (°) (r = 0,575) ve nasolabial açı (°) (r = 0,641) ve L1-APog (mm) (r = 0,658) mesafesi hariç tüm ölçümlerde yüksek olarak tespit edilmiştir.Sonuç: KIBT görüntüleri kullanılarak elde edilen 2D ve 3D lateral sefalometrik analizler karşılaştırıldığında, Pearson korelasyon hemen hemen tüm ölçümlerde yüksek olmasına rağmen, SN-GoGn (°), MP-PP (°), Y açısı (°) ve N-Me (mm) gibi dik yön ile ilgili değerlerde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık gözlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BÜYÜK, S., HALICIOĞLU, K., ÇELİKOĞLU, M., ŞEKERCİ, A., ÜNAL, T., KILKIŞ, D. (2015). COMPARISON OF LATERAL CEPHALOMETRIC ANALYSES MADE THREE DIMENSIONALLY AND TWO DIMENSIONALLY OBTAINED FROM CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY. Current Research in Dental Sciences, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 2, 213–218. https://ajindex.com/articles/901216

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971;60:111-27. Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique and its application 1931;51:93-114. Angle Orthod Halazonetis DJ. From 2-dimensional cephalograms to 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:627-37.
  2. Papadopoulos MA, Christou PK, Christou PK, Athanasiou AE, Boettcher P, Zeilhofer HF et al. Three-dimensional imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;93:382-93. reconstruction Hatcher DC, Aboudara CL. Diagnosis goes digital. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:512-5.
  3. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006;72:75- 80. White SC. Cone-beam imaging in dentistry. Health Phys. 2008;95:628-37.
  4. Kau CH, Richmond S, Palomo JM, Hans MG. Three- dimensional cone beam computerized tomography in orthodontics. J Orthod 2005;32:282-93.
  5. Buyuk SK, Ramoğlu Sİ. Ortodontik teşhiste konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 2011;20:227-34.
  6. Kumar V, Ludlow J, Soares, Cevidanes LH, Mol A. In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2008;78:873-9.
  7. Nur M, Kayipmaz S, Bayram M, Celikoglu M, Kilkis D, Sezgin OS. Conventional frontal radiographs compared with frontal radiographs obtained from cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2012 82:579-84. van Vlijmen OJ, Maal T, Bergé SJ, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. A comparison between 2D and 3D cephalometry on CBCT scans of human skulls. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;39:156-60. van Vlijmen OJ, Bergé SJ, Swennen GR, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Comparison of cephalometric radiographs obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans and conventional radiographs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:92-7.
  8. Chien PC, Parks ET, Eraso F, Hartsfield JK, Roberts WE, Ofner S. Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two- dimensional digital cephalometrics and three- dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009 38:262-73.
  9. Kumar V, Ludlow JB, Mol A, Cevidanes L. Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007;36:263-9.
  10. Papadopoulos MA, Jannowitz C, Boettcher P, Henke J, Stolla R, Zeilhofer HF et al. Three- dimensional fetal cephalometry: an evaluation of the reliability of cephalomet