The Angle orthodontist · 2011
Reproducibility of landmark identification in the jaw and teeth on 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Fuyamada Mariko, Nawa Hiroyuki, Shibata Momoko, Yoshida Kazuhito, Kise Yoshitaka, Katsumata Akitoshi, Ariji Eiichiro, Goto Shigemi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the reproducibility of landmark identification on three-dimensional (3D) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images between procedures based on traditional cephalometric definitions (procedure 1) and those tentatively proposed for 3D images (procedure 2).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A phantom with embedded dried human skull was scanned using CBCT. The acquired volume data were transferred to a personal computer, and 3D images were reconstructed. Eighteen dentists plotted nine landmarks related to the jaws and teeth four times: menton (Me), pogonion (Po), upper-1 (U1), lower-1 (L1), left upper-6 (U6), left lower-6 (L6), gonion (Go), condyle (Cd), and coronoid process (Cp). The plotting reliabilities of the two procedures were compared by calculating standard deviations (SDs) in three components (x, y, and z) of coordinates and volumes of 95% confidence ellipsoid.
RESULTS: All 27 SDs for procedure 2 were less than 1 mm, and only five of them exceeded 0.5 mm. The variations were significantly different between the two procedures, and the SDs of procedure 2 were smaller than those of procedure 1 in 21 components of coordinates. The ellipsoid volumes were also smaller for procedure 2 than procedure 1, although a significant difference was not found.
CONCLUSIONS: Definitions determined strictly on each three sectional images, such as for procedure 2, were required for sufficient reliability in identifying the landmark related to the jaws and teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A phantom with embedded dried human skull was scanned using CBCT. The acquired volume data were transferred to a personal computer, and 3D images were reconstructed. Eighteen dentists plotted nine landmarks related to the jaws and teeth four times: menton (Me), pogonion (Po), upper-1 (U1), lower-1 (L1), left upper-6 (U6), left lower-6 (L6), gonion (Go), condyle (Cd), and coronoid process (Cp). The plotting reliabilities of the two procedures were compared by calculating standard deviations (SDs) in three components (x, y, and z) of coordinates and volumes of 95% confidence ellipsoid.
RESULTS: All 27 SDs for procedure 2 were less than 1 mm, and only five of them exceeded 0.5 mm. The variations were significantly different between the two procedures, and the SDs of procedure 2 were smaller than those of procedure 1 in 21 components of coordinates. The ellipsoid volumes were also smaller for procedure 2 than procedure 1, although a significant difference was not found.
CONCLUSIONS: Definitions determined strictly on each three sectional images, such as for procedure 2, were required for sufficient reliability in identifying the landmark related to the jaws and teeth.