Yıl: 2011 Cilt: 53 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 43 - 49 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements

Öz:
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.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Genel ve Dahili Tıp

İki ve üç boyutlu sefalometrik ölçümler arasındaki farklılıkların değerlendirilmesi

Öz:
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.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Genel ve Dahili Tıp
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 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 A, Antunes JL, Cavalcanti MG. 3-D volume rendering maxillofacial analysis of angular measurements by multislice CT. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105: 224-230.
  • 17. Swennen GR, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 410-416.
  • 18. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Huang HW, Yao CC, Chang HF. Reliability of landmark identification in cephalometric radiography acquired by a storage phosphor imaging system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 301-306.
  • 19. Bruntz LQ, Palomo JM, Baden S, Hans MG. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 340-348.
  • 20. Togashi K, Kitaura H, Yonetsu K, Yoshida N, Nakamura T. Three-dimensional cephalometry using helical computer tomography: measurement error caused by head inclination. Angle Orthod 2002; 72: 513-520.
  • 21. Richtsmeier JT, Paik CH, Elfert PC, Cole TM 3rd, Dahlman HR. Precision, repeatability, and validation of the localization of cranial landmarks using computed tomography scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1995; 32: 217-227.
  • 22. Nagashima M, Inoue K, Sasaki T, Miyasaka K, Matsumura G, Kodama G. Three-dimensional imaging and osteometry of adult human skulls using helical computed tomography. Surg Radiol Anat 1998; 20: 291-297.
  • 23. Kusnoto B, Evans CA, BeGole EA, de Rijk W. Assessment of 3-dimensional computer-generated cephalometric measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116: 390-399.
  • 24. Cavalcanti MG, Haller JW, Vannier MW. Threedimensional computed tomography landmark measurement in craniofacial surgical planning: experimental validation in vitro. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999; 57: 690-694.
  • 25. Chidiac JJ, Shofer FS, Al-Kutoub A, Laster LL, Ghafari J. Comparison of CT scanograms and cephalometric radiographs in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 2002; 5: 104-113.
  • 26. Hildebolt CF, Vannier MW, Knapp RH. Validation study of skull three-dimensional computerized tomography measurements. Am J Phys Anthropol 1990; 82: 283-294.
  • 27. Ahlqvist J, Eliasson S, Welander U. The effect of projection errors on cephalometric length measurements. Eur J Orthod 1986; 8: 141-148.
  • 28. Malkoc S, Sari Z, Usumez S, Koyuturk AE. The effect of head rotation on cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod 2005; 27: 315-321.
  • 29. Kragskov J, Bosch C, Gyldensted C, Sindet-Pedersen S. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1997; 34: 111-116.
  • 30. Kumar V, Ludlow J, Soares Cevidanes LH, Mol A. In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 873-879.
  • 31. Periago DR, Scarfe WC, Moshiri M, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 387-395.
  • 32. Jamali AA, Deuel C, Perreira A, Salgado CJ, Hunter JC, Strong EB. Linear and angular measurements of computer-generated models: Are they accurate, valid, and reliable? Comput Aided Surg 2007; 2: 278-285.
APA YILDIRIM E, ÖLMEZ H, GÖRGÜLÜ S, GÖKÇE S, SAĞDIÇ D, KARAÇAY Ş (2011). Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements. , 43 - 49.
Chicago YILDIRIM Ersin,ÖLMEZ Hüseyin,GÖRGÜLÜ Serkan,GÖKÇE Sıla,SAĞDIÇ Deniz,KARAÇAY Şeniz Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements. (2011): 43 - 49.
MLA YILDIRIM Ersin,ÖLMEZ Hüseyin,GÖRGÜLÜ Serkan,GÖKÇE Sıla,SAĞDIÇ Deniz,KARAÇAY Şeniz Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements. , 2011, ss.43 - 49.
AMA YILDIRIM E,ÖLMEZ H,GÖRGÜLÜ S,GÖKÇE S,SAĞDIÇ D,KARAÇAY Ş Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements. . 2011; 43 - 49.
Vancouver YILDIRIM E,ÖLMEZ H,GÖRGÜLÜ S,GÖKÇE S,SAĞDIÇ D,KARAÇAY Ş Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements. . 2011; 43 - 49.
IEEE YILDIRIM E,ÖLMEZ H,GÖRGÜLÜ S,GÖKÇE S,SAĞDIÇ D,KARAÇAY Ş "Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements." , ss.43 - 49, 2011.
ISNAD YILDIRIM, Ersin vd. "Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements". (2011), 43-49.
APA YILDIRIM E, ÖLMEZ H, GÖRGÜLÜ S, GÖKÇE S, SAĞDIÇ D, KARAÇAY Ş (2011). Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi, 53(1), 43 - 49.
Chicago YILDIRIM Ersin,ÖLMEZ Hüseyin,GÖRGÜLÜ Serkan,GÖKÇE Sıla,SAĞDIÇ Deniz,KARAÇAY Şeniz Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi 53, no.1 (2011): 43 - 49.
MLA YILDIRIM Ersin,ÖLMEZ Hüseyin,GÖRGÜLÜ Serkan,GÖKÇE Sıla,SAĞDIÇ Deniz,KARAÇAY Şeniz Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi, vol.53, no.1, 2011, ss.43 - 49.
AMA YILDIRIM E,ÖLMEZ H,GÖRGÜLÜ S,GÖKÇE S,SAĞDIÇ D,KARAÇAY Ş Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi. 2011; 53(1): 43 - 49.
Vancouver YILDIRIM E,ÖLMEZ H,GÖRGÜLÜ S,GÖKÇE S,SAĞDIÇ D,KARAÇAY Ş Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi. 2011; 53(1): 43 - 49.
IEEE YILDIRIM E,ÖLMEZ H,GÖRGÜLÜ S,GÖKÇE S,SAĞDIÇ D,KARAÇAY Ş "Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements." Gülhane Tıp Dergisi, 53, ss.43 - 49, 2011.
ISNAD YILDIRIM, Ersin vd. "Evaluation of differences between two and three dimensional cephalometric measurements". Gülhane Tıp Dergisi 53/1 (2011), 43-49.