Is there consistency in cephalometric landmark identification amongst oral and maxillofacial surgeons? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Imaging Science in Dentistry, 2015
Purpose: The aim this study was to compare the accuracy of orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists in identifying 17 commonly used cephalometric landmarks, and to determine the extent of variability associated with each of those landmarks. Materials and Methods: Twenty digital lateral cephalometric radiographs were evaluated by two groups of dental specialists, and 17 cephalometric landmarks were identified. The x and y coordinates of each landmark were recorded. The mean value for each landmark was considered the best estimate and used as the standard. Variation in measurements of the distance between landmarks and measurements of the angles associated with certain landmarks was also assessed by a subset of two observers, and intraobserver and interobserver agreement were evaluated. results: Intraclass correlation coefficients were excellent for intraobserver agreement, but only good for inter observer agreement. The least reliable landmark for orthodontists was the gnathion (Gn) point (standard deviation [SD], 5.92 mm), while the orbitale (Or) was the least reliable landmark (SD, 4.41 mm) for dentomaxillofacial radiologists. Furthermore, the condylion (Co)Gn plane was the least consistent (SD, 4.43 mm). Conclusion: We established that some landmarks were not as reproducible as others, both horizontally and vertically. The most consistently identified landmark in both groups was the lower incisor border, while the least reliable points were Co, Gn, Or, and the anterior nasal spine. Overall, a lower level of reproducibility in the identification of cephalometric landmarks was observed among orthodontists.
Medicina Oral Patología Oral y Cirugia Bucal, 2012
Objectives: Cone Beam Computerized Tomography (CBCT) allows the possibility of modifying some of the diagnostic tools used in orthodontics, such as cephalometry. The first step must be to study the characteristics of these devices in terms of accuracy and reliability of the most commonly used landmarks. The aims were 1-To assess intra and inter-observer reliability in the location of anatomical landmarks belonging to hard tissues of the skull in images taken with a CBCT device, 2-To determine which of those landmarks are more vs. less reliable and 3-To introduce planes of reference so as to create cephalometric analyses appropriated to the 3D reality. Study design: Fifteen patients who had a CBCT (i-CAT®) as a diagnostic register were selected. To assess the reproducibility on landmark location and the differences in the measurements of two observers at different times, 41 landmarks were defined on the three spatial axes (X,Y,Z) and located. 3.690 measurements were taken and, as each determination has 3 coordinates, 11.070 data were processed with SPSS® statistical package. To discover the reproducibility of the method on landmark location, an ANOVA was undertaken using two variation factors: time (t1, t2 and t3) and observer (Ob1 and Ob2) for each axis (X, Y and Z) and landmark. The order of the CBCT scans submitted to the observers (Ob1, Ob2) at t1, t2, and t3, were different and randomly allocated. Multiple compari
Clinical Orthodontics and Research, 2000
Identification of craniofacial landmarks, particularly condylar anatomy, on the lateral cephalometric radiograph is erratic. The accuracy of recognition is critical for proper diagnosis of malocclusion and for assessing growth and orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the identification of condylion and other cephalometric landmarks commonly used, or thought to be easily identifiable. A lateral cephalograph was taken on each of 34 adult subjects. Five examiners, three orthodontists, a dental radiologist and a second-year orthodontic resident rated the condyle, along with sella (S), nasion (Na), point A (A), infradentale (I), pogonion (Pog) and menton (Me) as identifiable, non-identifiable and interpreted. In addition, distances between several of these landmarks were measured. The left condyle, subject to less magnification than the right condyle because it is closer to the film, was more identifiable than the right condyle, which had the highest rating as non-identifiable. Among other landmarks, nasion and point A were the least identifiable, Pog and Me the most. Correlation coefficients for measurements between identifiable landmarks (I-Me) were greater than coefficients for distances involving less identifiable landmarks (S-A). Interestingly, linear measurements were less variable than the identification of corresponding landmarks. These findings corroborate the previous conclusions that clearly identifiable (and the least amount of interpreted) landmarks should be used for proper evaluation of dentofacial relationships. They also suggest, on average, precision in landmark identification is more critical for research purposes than in routine clinical cephalomteric measurements, which serve only as a guide to diagnosis.
Cephalometric Analysis for Orthognathic Surgery
2017
The key for successful orthognathic surgery is the precise and careful diagnosis of facial, skeletal and dental problems. The cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery shows the orthodontist the horizontal and vertical positions of the facial bones by the use of a steady harmonized system. The sizes of the bones are represented by direct linear measurements whereas the shapes are measured by angular measurements. This analysis has been imperative for diagnosis and treatment planning of orthognathic surgery. The landmarks and measurements selected in the analysis can be altered by numerous surgical procedures. The rectilinear measurements can be transferred readily to a case study for mock surgery to learn further. And finally the comprehensive appraisal encompasses all of the facial bones and a cranial base for reference. To make it clinically practical, the analysis has been reduced to its most relevant and significant measurements. Because the measurements in cephalometric a...
2010
The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of cephalometric prediction tracings-performed for orthognathic surgery-by means of the cephalometric analysis of preoperative and seven-day postoperative tracings, in patients subjected to correction of mandibular deformities. Methods: The lateral cephalograms of 17 patients who had been submitted to mandibular orthognathic surgery, three years earlier, were used. Cephalometric tracings were performed in the preoperative and seven-day postoperative periods and the following landmarks were traced: condyle (Co), pogonion (Pog), gonial (Go), menton (Me), B (B) and incisor (I). The analysis was based on the difference obtained by superimposing preoperative, prediction and postoperative tracings. The landmarks were projected onto a Cartesian plane for measuring distances between points in millimeters. The data were statistically analyzed using the paired Student t test (= 0.05). Results: A statistically significant mean difference was observed between the planned change and the change effectively achieved in the postoperative cephalometric tracings for points Pog (p = 0.014) and I (p = 0.008) on the horizontal axis. No statistically significant difference was found for the aforementioned cephalometric points on the vertical axis (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Cephalometric prediction tracings contributed to the preoperative evaluation of the patients and consequently to treatment optimization. However, they was not entirely reliable in these cases due to a slight underestimation of horizontal skeletal changes. These changes should be considered in planning and postoperative follow-up of patients subjected to orthognathic surgery in the mandible.
Evaluation of the influence of patient positioning on the reliability of lateral cephalometry
La Radiologia medica, 2017
Two-dimensional cephalometry is widely used for monitoring orthodontic treatments and for quantifying the outcome of maxillofacial surgery. Despite careful use of a cephalostat, successive radiographs might differ due to slight differences in patient posture. This study evaluates the reliability of lateral cephalometric measurements and estimates the impact of patient positioning on this reliability. We studied cephalograms of 104 patients; 31 of them had two radiographs because the first was deemed unsuitable for cephalometric analysis. Using AudaxCeph 3.0 (Audax, Ljubljana, Slovenia), two observers traced each cephalogram twice, one month apart. We evaluated intra- and interobserver agreement via Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement, and smallest detectable difference (SDD). First, we studied the reliability of the hard tissue part of the Tweed-Merrifield analysis for 73 single cephalograms and for the better ones of patien...
Cephalometric Methods of Prediction in Orthognathic Surgery
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, 2011
Over the past decade the growing number of adult patients seeking for orthodontic treatment made orthognathic surgery popular. Surgical and orthodontic techniques have developed to the point where combined orthodontic and surgical treatment is now feasible to manage dentofacial deformity problems very satisfactorily. The prediction of orthognathic treatment outcome is an important part of orthognathic planning and the process of patient' inform consent. The predicted results must be presented to the patients prior to treatment in order to assess the treatment's feasibility, optimize case management and increase patient understanding and acceptance of the recommended treatment. Cephalometrics is a routine part of the diagnosis and treatment planning process and also allows the clinician to evaluate changes following orthognathic surgery. Traditionally cephalometry has been employed manually; nowadays computerized cephalometric systems are very popular. Cephalometric prediction in orthognathic surgery can be done manually or by computers, using several currently available software programs, alone or in combination with video images. Both manual and computerized cephalometric prediction methods are two-dimensional and cannot fully describe three-dimensional phenomena. Today, three-dimensional prediction methods are available, such as three-dimensional computerized tomography (3DCT), 3D magnetic resonance imaging (3DMRI) and surface scan/cone-beam CT. The aim of this article is to present and discuss the different methods of cephalometric prediction of the orthognathic surgery outcome.
Repeated measures analysis of geometrically constructed and directly determined cephalometric points
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1987
~e~halometr~c landmarks were directly determined visually from bony anatomy on lateral ceph~~ometric radiographs and compared with geometrically constructed cephalometric landmarks for repe measures reliability of identification. Three groups of four orthodontists, grouped by level of ex rice, identified 18 landmarks on each of four cephalometric radiographs. This measurement proc was repeated four times in 1-week intervals. The variability, main associations and interactions among the variables of tracer experience, quality of radiograph traced, and the anatomic landmarks traced were assessed by means of the repeated measures analysis of variance and follow-up Tukey HSD test. The coefficient of variation was used to compare the relative variability of replicate identification of the 18 cephalometric landmarks. Rank order and statistically significant groupin variability are listed. The level of observer experience and quality of radiograph were statistically unrelated to landmark variability on replicate examination. The geometrically constructed landmarks tested were not statistically different from the reliability of the directly determined bony-based landmarks. This finding would lend support to the techniques of geometric construction used in the Ricketts cephalometric analysis.