The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 1997
Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kragskov J, Bosch C, Gyldensted C, Sindet-Pedersen S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Conventional cephalometry is an inexpensive and well-established method for evaluating patients with dentofacial deformities. However, patients with major deformities, and in particular asymmetric cases are difficult to evaluate by conventional cephalometry. Both two- and three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) have been proposed to alleviate some of these difficulties. Only a few studies using metallic markers have indicated 3-D CT to be a useful diagnostic method, whereas no studies have evaluated the reliability of the anatomic cephalometric points used in 3-D CT. The aim of our study therefore was to compare the reliability of anatomic cephalometric points from conventional cephalograms and 3-D CT.
METHODS: Nine human dry skulls were CT scanned. In addition standard lateral and frontal cephalograms were obtained. The CT scans were 3-D image reconstructed, and the cephalometric points were recorded as x, y, and z co-ordinates by two investigators. Computerized cephalometrics were performed-on the lateral and frontal cephalograms. Intra- and interindividual variations were calculated for each method and tested for statistical significance.
RESULTS: Lateral cephalogram measures were more reliable than 3-D CT, with interobserver variations less than 1 mm for most points compared to about 2 mm for 3-D CT. Lateral cephalometrics also showed significantly less interobserver variation for six variables. This was, however, less obvious when 3-D CT was compared to frontal cephalograms. Frontal cephalometrics showed significantly less interobserver variation for three of the investigated variables.
CONCLUSIONS: For standard lateral and frontal cephalometric points, there is no evidence that 3-D CT is more reliable than the conventional cephalometric methods in normal skull, and the benefit of 3-D CT cephalometric is indicated to be in the severe asymmetric craniofacial syndrome patients, as conventional cephalometrics is known to be inferior in these cases.
METHODS: Nine human dry skulls were CT scanned. In addition standard lateral and frontal cephalograms were obtained. The CT scans were 3-D image reconstructed, and the cephalometric points were recorded as x, y, and z co-ordinates by two investigators. Computerized cephalometrics were performed-on the lateral and frontal cephalograms. Intra- and interindividual variations were calculated for each method and tested for statistical significance.
RESULTS: Lateral cephalogram measures were more reliable than 3-D CT, with interobserver variations less than 1 mm for most points compared to about 2 mm for 3-D CT. Lateral cephalometrics also showed significantly less interobserver variation for six variables. This was, however, less obvious when 3-D CT was compared to frontal cephalograms. Frontal cephalometrics showed significantly less interobserver variation for three of the investigated variables.
CONCLUSIONS: For standard lateral and frontal cephalometric points, there is no evidence that 3-D CT is more reliable than the conventional cephalometric methods in normal skull, and the benefit of 3-D CT cephalometric is indicated to be in the severe asymmetric craniofacial syndrome patients, as conventional cephalometrics is known to be inferior in these cases.