Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 33 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 85 - 91 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097 İndeks Tarihi: 21-10-2020

Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors

Öz:
Objective: This study aims to quantitatively compare cephalogram and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) when evaluatingmaxillary central incisor alveolar bone thickness.Methods: We used 30 sets of lateral cephalograms and CBCT images that were recorded at the same time. Labial, buccal, and overallalveolar bone thicknesses were measured on three measurement lines of the forward-most incisor in lateral cephalograms and fourmaxillary incisors in CBCT images. Paired t-test, interclass correlation coefficient analysis, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), andBland–Altman analysis were used to assess cephalometrically measured alveolar bone thickness of maxillary incisors and comparethese measurements with those made using CBCT images.Results: Significant differences were observed between cephalometric and CBCT-based measurements of maxillary incisor alveolarbone thickness; most values showed mild or moderate correlation between the two methods. In most cases, cephalometric measurements were greater than CBCT-based measurements. Bland–Altman plots and ANOVA revealed that measurement bias increasedwhen measurement lines moved apically. Alveolar bone thickness was always overestimated on cephalograms.Conclusion: Maxillary incisor alveolar bone thickness is always overestimated on cephalograms compared with CBCT-based measurements, with the overestimations ranging from 0.3 to 1.3 mm. Cephalometric measurement bias increases when measurementlines move apically. Thus, CBCT should be recommended when the accurate evaluation of alveolar bone thickness is warranted.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. da Silva MB, Gois BC, Sant′Anna EF. Evaluation of the reliability of measurements in cephalo-grams generated from cone beam computed tomography. Dental Press J Orthod 2013; 18: 53-60. [Crossref]
  • 2. Moreira CR, Sales MA, Lopes PM, Cavalcanti MG. Assessment of linear and angular measure-ments on three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographic images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 108: 430-6. [Crossref]
  • 3. Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Hans MG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 19-25. [Crossref]
  • 4. Lagravère M O, Carey J, Toogood RW, Major PW. Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 112-6. [Crossref]
  • 5. Rungcharassaeng K, Caruso JM, Kan JYK, Kim J, Taylor G. Factors affecting buccal bone chang-es of maxillary posterior teeth after rapid maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 428.e1-8. [Crossref]
  • 6. Grimard BA, Hoidal MJ, Mills MP, Mellonig JM, Nummikoski PV, Mealy BL. Comparison of clinical, periapical radiograph, and conebeam volume tomography measurement techniques for as-sessing bone level changes following regenerative periodontal therapy. J Periodontol 2009; 80: 48- 55. [Crossref]
  • 7. Nowzari H, Molayem S, Chiu CH, Rick SK. Cone beam computed tomographic measurement of max-illary central incisors to determine prevalence of facial alveolar bone width ≥2 mm. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14: 595-602. [Crossref]
  • 8. Ludlow JB, Gubler M, Cevidanes L, Mol A. Precision of cephalometric landmark identification: cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional cephalometric views. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 312.e1-10. [Crossref]
  • 9. Nowzari H, Molayem S, Chiu CH, Rich SK. Cone beam computed tomographic measurement of maxillary central incisors to determine prevalence of facial alveolar bone width ≥2 mm. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14: 595-602. [Crossref]
  • 10. Berco M, Jr Rigali PH, Miner RM, DeLuca S, Anderson NK, Will LA. Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Or-thop 2009; 136: 17-8. [Crossref]
  • 11. Chien PC, Parks ET, Eraso F, Hartsfield JK, Roberts WE, Ofner S. Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identifica-tion using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomog-raphy in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 262-73. [Crossref]
  • 12. de Oliveira AE, Cevidanes LH, Phillips C, Motta A, Burke B, Tyndall D. Observer reliability of three-dimensional cepha-lometric landmark identification on cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: 256-65. [Crossref]
  • 13. Yodthong N, Charoemratrote C, Leethanakul C. Factors related to alveolar bone thickness during upper incisor retraction. Angle Orthodontist 2013; 83: 394. [Crossref]
  • 14. Chan E, Dalci O, Petocz P, Papadopoulou AK, Darendeliler MA. Physical properties of root cementum: part 26. Effects of micro-osteoperforations on orthodontic root resorption: a microcom-puted tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018; 153: 204-13. [Crossref]
  • 15. Fuhrmann R. Three-dimensional interpretation of labiolingual bone width of the lower incisors. Part II. J Orofac Orthop 1996; 57: 168-85. [Crossref]
  • 16. Nayak Krishna US, Shetty A, Girija MP, Nayak R. Changes in alveolar bone thickness due to retrac-tion of anterior teeth during orthodontic treatment: a cephalometric and computed tomography com-parative study. Indian J Dent Res 2013; 24: 736-41. [Crossref]
  • 17. Yan Z, Zhenyu Q, Lin L, Wei H, Gang L. The incidence of fenestration and dehis-cence on in-cisor region of Skeletal Class Ⅱ Division 1 malocclusions: a cone beam CT study. Chinese J Orthodol 2016; 23: 2-7.
  • 18. Fuentes R, Flores T, Navarro P, Salamanca C, Beltrán V, Borie E. Assessment of buccal bone thickness of aesthetic maxillary region: a cone-beam computed tomography study. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2015; 45: 162-8. [Crossref]
  • 19. Lee SL, Kim HJ, Son MK, Chung CH. Anthropometric analysis of maxillary anterior buccal bone of Korean adults using cone-beam CT. J Adv Prosthodont 2015; 2: 92-6. [Crossref]
  • 20. Kula T J, Ghoneima A, Eckert G, Parks ET, Utreja A, Kula K. Two-dimensional vs 3-dimensional comparison of alveo-lar bone over maxillary incisors with A-point as a reference. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; 152: 836-47.e2. [Crossref]
  • 21. Thongudomporn U, Charoemratrote C, Jearapongpakorn S. Changes of anterior maxillary alveo-lar bone thickness following incisor proclination and extrusion. Angle Orthod 2014; 85: 549-54. [Crossref]
  • 22. Handelman CS. The anterior alveolus: its importance in limiting orthodontic treatment and its influence on the occurrence of iatrogenic sequelae. Angle Orthod 1996; 2: 95-110.
  • 23. Lee J, Koh D, Ong CN. Statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring a quantitative variable. Comput Biol Med 1989; 19:61-70. [Crossref]
  • 24. Kim Y J, Lim S H, Gang S N. Comparison of cephalometric measurements and cone-beam com-puted tomography-based measurements of palatal bone thickness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145: 165-72. [Crossref]
  • 25. Sun L, Zhang L, Shen G, Wang B, Fang B. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography in-detecting alveo-lar bone dehiscences andfenestrations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 147: 313- 23. [Crossref]
  • 26. Carlos FM, Rosenblatt MR, Major PW, Carey JP, Heo G. Measurement accuracy and reliability of tooth length on conventional and CBCT reconstructed panoramic radiographs. Dental Press J Orthod 2014; 19: 45-53. [Crossref]
  • 27. Raber A, Kula K, Ghoneima A. Three-dimensional evaluation of labial alveolar bone overlying the maxillary and mandibular incisors in different skeletal classifications of malocclusion. Int Orthod 2019; 17: 287-295. [Crossref]
APA wei d, zhang l, li w, Jia Y (2020). Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors. , 85 - 91. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097
Chicago wei diyang,zhang lingyun,li weiran,Jia Yilin Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors. (2020): 85 - 91. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097
MLA wei diyang,zhang lingyun,li weiran,Jia Yilin Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors. , 2020, ss.85 - 91. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097
AMA wei d,zhang l,li w,Jia Y Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors. . 2020; 85 - 91. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097
Vancouver wei d,zhang l,li w,Jia Y Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors. . 2020; 85 - 91. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097
IEEE wei d,zhang l,li w,Jia Y "Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors." , ss.85 - 91, 2020. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097
ISNAD wei, diyang vd. "Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors". (2020), 85-91. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097
APA wei d, zhang l, li w, Jia Y (2020). Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, 33(2), 85 - 91. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097
Chicago wei diyang,zhang lingyun,li weiran,Jia Yilin Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics 33, no.2 (2020): 85 - 91. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097
MLA wei diyang,zhang lingyun,li weiran,Jia Yilin Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, vol.33, no.2, 2020, ss.85 - 91. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097
AMA wei d,zhang l,li w,Jia Y Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics. 2020; 33(2): 85 - 91. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097
Vancouver wei d,zhang l,li w,Jia Y Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics. 2020; 33(2): 85 - 91. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097
IEEE wei d,zhang l,li w,Jia Y "Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors." Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, 33, ss.85 - 91, 2020. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097
ISNAD wei, diyang vd. "Quantitative Comparison of Cephalogram and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Alveolar Bone Thickness of Maxillary Incisors". Turkish Journal of Orthodontics 33/2 (2020), 85-91. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19097