A comparative study of the reproducibility of landmark identification on posteroanterior and anteroposterior cephalograms generated from cone-beam computed tomography scans.
10.4041/kjod.2019.49.1.41
- Author:
Eui Ri NA
1
;
Hussein ALJAWAD
;
Kyung Min LEE
;
Hyeon Shik HWANG
Author Information
1. Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea.
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Posteroanterior cephalogram;
Anteroposterior cephalogram;
cone-beam computed tomography
- MeSH:
Adult;
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography*;
Humans;
Spine
- From:The Korean Journal of Orthodontics
2019;49(1):41-48
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: This in-vivo study aimed to compare landmark identification errors in anteroposterior (AP) and posteroanterior (PA) cephalograms generated from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan data in order to examine the feasibility of using AP cephalograms in clinical settings. METHODS: AP and PA cephalograms were generated from CBCT scans obtained from 25 adults. Four experienced and four inexperienced examiners were selected depending on their experience levels in analyzing frontal cephalograms. They identified six cephalometric landmarks on AP and PA cephalograms. The errors incurred in positioning the cephalometric landmarks on the AP and PA cephalograms were calculated by using the straight-line distance and the horizontal and vertical components as parameters. RESULTS: Comparison of the landmark identification errors in CBCT-generated frontal cephalograms revealed that landmark-dependent differences were greater than experience- or projection-dependent differences. Comparisons of landmark identification errors in the horizontal and vertical directions revealed larger errors in identification of the crista galli and anterior nasal spine in the vertical direction and the menton in the horizontal direction, in comparison with the other landmarks. Comparison of landmark identification errors between the AP and PA projections in CBCT-generated images revealed a slightly higher error rate in the AP projections, with no inter-examiner differences. Statistical testing of the differences in landmark identification errors between AP and PA cephalograms showed no statistically significant differences for all landmarks. CONCLUSIONS: The reproducibility of CBCT-generated AP cephalograms is comparable to that of PA cephalograms; therefore, AP cephalograms can be generated reliably from CBCT scan data in clinical settings.
