Comparison of measurements of mandible growth using cone beam computed tomography and its synthesized cephalograms

BioMedical Engineering OnLine

Hsien-Shu Lin¹  Jia-Da Li³  Yunn-Jy Chen¹  Cheng-Chung Lin³  Tung-Wu Lu²  Mu-Hsiung Chen⁴ 

[1] School of Dentistry, National Taiwan University, Taipei City, Taiwan

[2] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei City, Taiwan

[3] Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei City, Taiwan

[4] Department of Dentistry, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan

关键词: Miniature pigs;    Mandible growth;    Cephalograms;    CBCT;   

Others  :  1084411
DOI  :  10.1186/1475-925X-13-133

 received in 2014-05-29, accepted in 2014-08-30,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The current study aimed to compare the measurements of the mandible morphology using 3D cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images with those using 2D CBCT-synthesized cephalograms; to quantify errors in measurements based on 2D synthesized cephalograms; and to clarify the effects such errors have on the description of the mandibular growth.

Methods

Mandibles of six miniature pigs were scanned monthly using CBCT over 12 months and the data were used to reconstruct the 3D bone models. Five anatomical landmarks were identified on each bone model, and the inter-marker distances and monthly distance changes were calculated and taken as the gold standard. Synthetic 2D cephalograms were also generated for each bone model using a digitally reconstructed radiography (DRR)-generation method. Errors in cephalogram measurements were determined as the differences between the calculated variables in cephalograms and the gold standard. The variations between cephalograms and the gold standard were also compared using paired t-tests.

Results

While the inter-marker distance increases varied among the marker pairs, all marker pairs increased their inter-marker distances gradually every month, reaching 50% of the total annual increases during the fourth and fifth months, and then slowing down in the subsequent months. The 2D measurements significantly underestimated most of the inter-marker distances throughout the monitoring period, in most of the monthly inter-marker distance changes during the first four months, and in the total growth (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Significant errors exist in the measurements using 2D synthesized cephalogram, underestimating the mandibular dimensions and their monthly changes in the early stages of growth, as well as the total annual growth. These results should be considered in dental treatment planning at the beginning of the treatment in order to control more precisely the treatment process and outcome.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Lin et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Krarup S, Darvann TA, Larsen P, Marsh JL, Kreiborg S: Three-dimensional analysis of mandibular growth and tooth eruption. J Anat 2005, 207:669-682.
• [2]Reynolds M, Reynolds M, Adeeb S, El-Bialy T: 3-d volumetric evaluation of human mandibular growth. Open Biomed Eng J 2011, 5:83-89.
• [3]Huh K-H, Yi W-J, Jeon I-S, Heo M-S, Lee S-S, Choi S-C, Lee J-I, Lee Y-K: Relationship between two-dimensional and three-dimensional bone architecture in predicting the mechanical strength of the pig mandible. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006, 101:363-373.
• [4]Ström D, Holm S, Clemensson E, Haraldson T, Carlsson GE: Gross anatomy of the mandibular joint and masticatory muscles in the domestic pig (Sus scrofa). Arch Oral Biol 1986, 31:763-768.
• [5]Langenbach GEJ, Zhang F, Herring SW, Hannam AG: Modelling the masticatory biomechanics of a pig. J Anat 2002, 201:383-393.
• [6]Obrez A: Mandibular molar teeth and the development of mastication in the miniature pig (Sus scrofa). Acta Anat (Basel) 1996, 156:99-111.
• [7]Koppe T, Rossmann P, Ohkawa Y, Schumacher GH, Nagai H: The course of the mandibular canal in the growing miniature pig. Okajimas Folia Anat Jpn 1997, 74:39-52.
• [8]Kuboki T, Shinoda M, Orsini MG, Yamashita A: Viscoelastic properties of the pig temporomandibular joint articular soft tissues of the condyle and disc. J Dent Res 1997, 76:1760-1769.
• [9]Ide Y, Nakahara T, Nasu M, Matsunaga S, Iwanaga T, Tominaga N, Tamaki Y: Postnatal mandibular cheek tooth development in the miniature pig based on two-dimensional and three-dimensional X-ray analyses. Anat Rec 2013. doi:10.1002/ar.22725
• [10]Moyers RE, Bookstein FL, Hunter WS: Analysis of the Craniofacial Skeleton: Cephalometrics. In Handbook of Orthodontics. Edited by Moyers RE. Chicago: Year Book Medical; 1988:247-309.
• [11]Athanasiou AE: Orthodontic Cephalometry. London: Mosby Wolfe; 1997.
• [12]Halazonetis DJ: From 2-dimensional cephalograms to 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. Am J Orthod Dentofac 2005, 127:627-637.
• [13]Papadopoulos MA, Jannowitz C, Boettcher P, Henke J, Stolla R, Zeilhofer H-F, Kovacs L, Erhardt W, Biemer E, Papadopulos NA: Three-dimensional fetal cephalometry: an evaluation of the reliability of cephalometric measurements based on three-dimensional CT reconstructions and on dry skulls of sheep fetuses. J Cranio-MaxilloFac Surg 2005, 33:229-237.
• [14]Broadbent BH: A new X-ray technique and its application to orthodontia: the introduction of cephalometric radiography. Angle Orthod 1981, 51:93-114.
• [15]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 Dentofac 2004, 126:397-409.
• [16]Nalçaci R, Öztürk F, Sökücü O: A comparison of two-dimensional radiography and three-dimensional computed tomography in angular cephalometric measurements. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010, 39:100-106.
• [17]Chen M-H, Chang JZ-C, Kok S-H, Chen Y-J, Huang Y-D, Cheng K-Y, Lin C-P: Intraobserver reliability of landmark identification in cone-beam computed tomography-synthesized two-dimensional cephalograms versus conventional cephalometric radiography: a preliminary study. J Dent Sci 2014, 9(1):56-62.
• [18]Chien P, Parks E, Eraso F, Hartsfield J, Roberts W, Ofner S: Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009, 38:262-273.
• [19]Mah J, Hatcher D: Current status and future needs in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003, 6:10-16.
• [20]Cavalcanti M, Rocha S, Vannier M: Craniofacial measurements based on 3D-CT volume rendering: implications for clinical applications. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004, 33:170-176.
• [21]Hildebolt CF, Vannier MW, Knapp RH: Validation study of skull three-dimensional computerized tomography measurements. Am J Phys Anthropol 1990, 82:283-294.
• [22]DeCoster T, Mercer D, Baldwin E: Comparison of the accuracy of X-ray, 2D-CT, 3D-CT, and physical modeling in classification of fractures about the elbow needing operative treatment. UNM Orthopaedic Research Journal 2012, 1(1):22-25.
• [23]Cavalcanti MG, Vannier MW: Quantitative analysis of spiral computed tomography for craniofacial clinical applications. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998, 27:344-350.
• [24]Kumar V, Ludlow J, Mol A, Cevidanes L: Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007, 36:263-269.
• [25]Ludlow J, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S: Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and orthophos plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003, 32:229-234.
• [26]Sukovic P: Cone beam computed tomography in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003, 6:31-36.
• [27]Farman AG, Scarfe WC: Development of imaging selection criteria and procedures should precede cephalometric assessment with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac 2006, 130:257-265.
• [28]Gibbs SJ: Effective dose equivalent and effective dose: comparison for common projections in oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000, 90:538-545.
• [29]Roberts JA, Drage NA, Davies J, Thomas DW: Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Brit J Radiol 2009, 82:35-40.
• [30]Lin H-S, Chen Y-J, Li J-D, Lu T-W, Chang H-H, Hu C-C: Measurement of mandibular growth using cone-beam computed tomography: a miniature pig model study. PLOS ONE 2014, 9:e96540.
• [31]Siddon RL: Fast calculation of the exact radiological path for a three-dimensional CT array. Med Phys 1985, 12:252-255.
• [32]Penney GP, Weese J, Little JA, Desmedt P, Hill DLG, Hawkes DJ: A comparison of similarity measures for use in 2-D-3-D medical image registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1998, 17:586-595.
• [33]Lin H-S, Lu S-L, Chen Y-J, Lu T-W, Huang Y-D: Test-retest reliability of morphological measurements of the mandible on cone-beam computed tomography-synthesized cephalograms. J Dent Sciin press